Private Social Media Platform

4 => Discussions; Public Archive => Topic started by: Dale Eastman on September 30, 2022, 10:32:17 AM

Title: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on September 30, 2022, 10:32:17 AM
Quote from: 5 December 2023 12:25
Posted without comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERJfoH2fgI
Quote from: 30 11:14
Bird traveled over 60,000 miles around Antarctica even tho the claimed size on the spherical model is roughly 14,000 miles. He also claimed there was land beyond Antarctica. So if Antarctica is just the shoreline for our world pond(oceans), what are they hiding with the Antarctic treaty. Why do you think it's a big deal that putin is threatening to break the treaty. I know you don't like to discuss the notion that the earth isn't a ball in an infinite space vaccume but, there is more and more evidence to support the idea that is not everyday.
Quote from: 30 11:19
I'm fine with discussing flat/round earth. What I'm not okay with is folks who refuse to think and folks who refuse to actually look at and discuss facts. Scratch that... and discuss information and data.

If you are willing to do that, I'll start another thread here in my collection of shares.

Lemme know.
Quote from: 30 11:24
That's a great answer especially compared to the normal reaction to the notion. First thing is, it is most flat-earters contention that the flat-eart society is a government disinformation co-intel-pro type organization meant to make fe looks retarded. I only make a couple positive claims, mostly just questions about major flaws in the proposed globe model, such as the one i made in my original comment. I would be down to have a discussion with the caveats considered.
Quote from: 30 12:03
➽  I know you don't like to discuss the  notion that the earth isn't a ball in an infinite space vaccume but,  there is more and more evidence to support the idea that is not  everyday.

Here's the convo starter OP.

➽ I only make a couple positive claims, mostly just questions about major flaws in the proposed globe model, such as the one i made in my original comment.

I've not really seen direct claims in your post in the other thread.

I can't even claim you've implied a PRO-FE position.

➽ Bird traveled over 60,000 miles around Antarctica even tho the claimed size on the spherical model is roughly 14,000 miles.

I'm not sure which dimension of what is meant by 14,000 miles. The GE model is a circumference is...

⚡ Measured around the Equator, it is 40,075.017 km (24,901.461 mi). Measured around the poles, the circumference is 40,007.863 km (24,859.734 mi). Measurement of Earth's circumference has been important to navigation since ancient times.
Wikipedia⚡

I used to own a truck. I did 90,000 miles per year. Average 250 miles per day. Max speed out west, 70 mph, or 3.5 hours average drive time. So, what speed did Byrd travel at?

➽ So if Antarctica is just the shoreline for our world pond(oceans), what are they hiding with the Antarctic treaty.

That "IF' is very important. FE thinks it's a shoreline. GE does not.

I am nescient of the words of this treaty. So I only have a half challenge on the assumption that the treaty is hiding something.  The treaty is a null issue on the FE-GE discussion.

➽ Why do you think it's a big deal that putin is threatening to break the treaty.

Resources... And meeting Biden's warmongering threats with his own.

My questions are specific...
And in your case, rhetorical unless you feel the need to attempt to answer.
What is the sun's distance from the alleged FE?
What is the sun's angular size?
If the distance X has an angular size of Y, and you cut the distance X in half, what is the angular size of the sun?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on September 30, 2022, 11:49:17 AM
Quote from: September 30 12:10
Could i start more fundamental? I would ask how earth's proposed sizeis known. To know meaning: to know first hand. How is earths size calculated. We have to establish this before we start to comment or speculate on the lights in the sky.
Quote from: 30 12:40
➽ how earth's proposed size is known

First pass without detail answer: Trigonometry.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on September 30, 2022, 11:59:38 AM
Quote from: 30 12:43
ok perfect. But there's a presupposition of a distant sun casting rays on the earth nearly parallel, correct? Like this....
Quote from: 30 12:59
➽ presupposition

Assumption/claim of GE.

➽ nearly parallel

Yes.

Is this connected to my image showing how diameter can be discerned from a fixed elevated object?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on September 30, 2022, 01:11:02 PM
Quote from: 30 13:02
yes. Your correct about the math and everything. However we are trying to explain observable reality. The only thing any one has ever observed are cerpuscular rays coming from the sun such as...
Quote from: 30 13:03
would you agree?
Quote from: 30 13:51
Took me a moment to comprehend your point's connection to my image.

I was going to delete the following 35 words. Instead, I'm going to leave them as a chastisement that you can do more clear writing.

Would I agree that "we are trying to explain observable reality"?
Yes.

Would I agree that "The only thing any one has ever observed are cerpuscular rays coming from the sun"?
I can neither answer yes or no.

While I find the images you presented very intriguing, there is too much missing information to assume what appears is correct.

End 35+ word chastisement.

Now that I know what you are angling at (pun intended), I can address the unchecked assumptions.

I have marked this image with the non-parallel rays to the best of my ability. I have marked the image with a horizontal baseline. I have marked this image with a vertical bifurcating line. With knowledge of 1/2 baseline to angled line distance, and the angle of the angled line, Trig will give the answer of the distance from the baseline to the apex where the two angled lines intersect. How close to equal is the length of the vertical line and 1/2 the baseline by what you see? The red horizontal line is not at the waterline because the to vertices would be off the image.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on September 30, 2022, 01:47:25 PM
Quote from: 30 14:08
that sounds about right. And simple trig would give you an answer between 3000-5000 miles away Depending on many veriables. And we can get into why its difficult to actually triangulate the sun in a bit, but I'm stickin with this point to paint the picture. The calculations for trigonometric phericty work on a flat plane with a local light source. You can have two bottles on a table with a light over one bottle and you can measure the angles of the shadows and do some great trigonometry and figure out the sphericity of your table. Leaving out any presumptions. To presume a distant sun you have to presume the atmosphere is acting like a convex lens insted of a concave one also. But what I'm saying is neither one proves anything. But one of them requires two presumptions. Does that make sense?
Quote from: 30 14:40
➽ Does that make sense?

It does in that I understand the point you are attempting to make about why divergent v. parallel rays don't prove flat or globe. Absent checks on globe - flat trig, I would agree that figuring distance to the sun is not calculable.

You are attempting to use Occam's razor to shoot for the simplest theory. You invalidate your intent because you are yourself presuming others have used the presumption you claim. What you have presented is the concept of "atmospheric lensing". I'm going to kick that can down the road for now with the admission that atmo lensing IS a measurable thing and with the caveat that to bring it up again will require delving into its science.

If you scroll back up to the image I created, you err in what you are assuming. That image does NOT have anything to do with sunlight rays. That image is solely what line of sight angles are to the top of an object affixed to the earth.

On that issue, I will re post my standard answer to FE v GE debate.
Quote from: 30 14:45
Tweaked my original.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on September 30, 2022, 01:55:45 PM
Quote from: 30 14:49
Correct, the globe model would have to have a physical horizon at a set distance dependent on hight of the observer, is what you're saying?
Quote from: 30 14:54
For the sake of our discussion, I'm attempting the best I can, to act like I don't have the position I actually have.

My sole point is the angle to the top of a structure is measurable and different according to the two models/theories.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on September 30, 2022, 02:08:11 PM
Quote from: 30 14:59
correct me if I'm not hitting on your point. but you are seeing only the top of that building but would you agree that there is some magnifacation going on also? And there could be an explanation not requiring the notion of a globe.
Quote from: 30 15:07
Whether there is magnification or not has no bearing on what is observed, shown, and photographed.

The issue is what is occluded. One only has a line of sight to the top half of a 1/4 mile tall building.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on September 30, 2022, 03:19:56 PM
Quote from: 30 15:39
we can go into atmospheric refraction soon but what your saying you're seeing you might would expect to see on a globe. I can get that. However this photo below should be impossible on a globe. You can plug in these numbers in an earth curve calculator.
Quote from: 30 16:17
The image only shows that the Chicago skyline can be seen from WHERE EVER the image was taken from.

The claim of 40 miles is plausible, but not valid because it is not known where the image was taken from. The claim of do the math is even less plausible without an exact location of where the image was taken. And the math is wrong because only 725 feet of the Sears/Willis tower is below the line of sight at 50 miles out.

The distance formula is not linear. It is exponential. Note to self: check the equation for comparison to the Kenosha image.
Note for you regarding my note to myself: I will check the online calculator(s) with the equations in a spread sheet once I re-wrap my mind around the math... Again.

Got guests coming this evening, so I will be offline at some point in time.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 01, 2022, 01:47:05 PM
Quote from: 30 15:55
i submit this into evidence
https://youtu.be/_J3SoI2BExQ
Quote from: 30 16:20
this one we know it at the shoreline at 1 foot of the ground.
https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
Quote from: 2 18:42
To have an orderly discussion with you, I need your help.

I wish to not have sub-threads with multiple parallel topics. One point beat to death at a time please.

Per the Fecalbook timestamps:

Quote from: 30 15:39: you.
Quote from: 30 16:17: me.
Quote from: 30 15:55: you.
Quote from: 30 16:20: you.

I am not presently addressing your 15:55 and 16:20 posts.

I addressed your 15:39 post with my 16:17 post.
While I was addressing that post you made two more posts.

Please do not do a Gish Gallop.

I have copied your 15:55 and 16:20 posts to my archive of our discussion. So I have a record to refer to so that I don't miss or ignore your points.

30 11:24
➽ First thing is, it is most flat-earters contention that the flat-eart society is a government disinformation co-intel-pro type organization meant to make fe looks retarded.

In my research to again wrap my mind around the math, I found this bit:
⚡ Flat Earthers seem to look at the world all on their own, without reference to the well over 2,000 years of human discovery.⚡

A point to be examined is navigation with a sextant and a clock. On both the FE and GE models. Set that aside, the comment is to archive to remind me.

30 14:59
➽ correct me if I'm not hitting on your point. but you are seeing only the top of that building but would you agree that there is some magnifacation going on also?

Upon re-reading your words, You did indeed miss my point. And I failed to make the point clearer.

If you again look at the image I made with the brown ground, red line of sight, and black tower, the angle observed differs depending upon FE or GE. A 45 degree difference.

30 15:39
➽ You can plug in these numbers in an earth curve calculator.

Per my 30 16:17 post...
Note to self: check the equation for comparison to the Kenosha image.

Upon doing so, and knowing the height of the building, there is not enough of the tower occluded per the online calculator.

Full transparency: The image I used is not mine. When I stumbled onto the picture, I grabbed it because it matched my recollection of seeing the tower with the bottom occluded when I stood on the beach myself. What my Boomer CRS disadvantages me with is I do not remember how much of the tower was occluded.

My intent is to get back to the beach and snap some photos of my own.

This is caused by "atmospheric_refraction" which is not the same as "atmospheric lensing. From my reading up on the refraction issue, temperature gradients will affect how much of the building can be seen at different times when the math says none should be visible.

I am also going to state that atmospheric refraction typically and usually operates to the advantage of the FE theory. I'm tired now. I will expand upon my claim and why I make it if you need me to.

30 15:55
➽ i submit this into evidence
https://youtu.be/_J3SoI2BExQ

Ah... Sorry... Nope.
You have submitted a theory that if proven true THEN becomes "evidence".

I did view the vid. It gets its own response when I address this 30 15:55 post of yours.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 02, 2022, 05:44:07 PM
Celestial Navigation
Stars location, distance, ray divergence.
Angular diameter, angular size.
North south angle of elevation on the same day. FE v. GE measurements.
Are stars farther away than the sun?
Tilt o earth N S 90 degree zenith limits. Tropics of ???
Flat earth sun on other tropic, distance angular diameter v. this tropic angular diameter half degree. Calculate distance size change.
https://www.eso.org/public/archives/images/screen/yb_southern_cross_cc.jpg

 "always visible" by Stobaeus (5th century),  Nav star since 5th century.
Compass points N-S. Where is the south pole.
α Crucis (Latinised to Alpha Crucis)     −63° 05′ 56.7343


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/flat-vs-round-earth

https://www.britannica.com/science/celestial-navigation

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/snells-law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_measurement

https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/solar-system/earth/flat/atmospheric-lensing.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/mirage.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#/media/File:Atmospheric_refraction_-_sunset_and_sunrise.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Colorado_Anticrepuscular_Rays.jpg/800px-Colorado_Anticrepuscular_Rays.jpg
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/atmpic/sunsetbob.jpg)(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/atmpic/renoray.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 02, 2022, 06:17:08 PM
Quote from: 2 18:56
are you familiar with fraunhofer defraction?
Quote from: 2 19:16
I checked Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction
It had a lot of words to state: "Gish Gallop".
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 03, 2022, 12:05:55 PM
Quote from: 2 19:17
I've got still pictures to demonstrate the effect for reference if you want...
Quote from: 3 15:22
You and I have not really beat the previous topic points to death yet.

The Wiki article points out that this stuff is at the micro (μ) level of size. You and I are discussing effects at the macro level.

⚡Refraction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with diffraction, the change in direction of a wave around an obstacle..⚡

⚡Diffraction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with refraction, the change in direction of a wave passing from one medium to another.⚡

And I note: Neither to be confused with atmospheric lensing which is brought up by the FE model and not yet addressed by me.

Back to the not dead horse...

30 15:39
➽ However this photo below should be impossible on a globe. You can plug in these numbers in an earth curve calculator.

To my surprise, the claim is correct. The photo you supplied, and the one I supplied, "should" both be impossible on a globe.

Your image does show buildings in Chicago that should be occluded. My image does show the tower that should be fully occluded.

Side note: Your image claims 1060 feet of Chicago should be below the horizon. The tower 1450 feet tall. So 390 feet of the top of the tower would still be visible.

⚡Atmospheric refraction is the deviation of light or other electromagnetic wave from a straight line as it passes through the atmosphere due to the variation in air density as a function of height.[1] This refraction is due to the velocity of light through air decreasing (the refractive index increases) with increased density. Atmospheric refraction near the ground produces mirages. Such refraction can also raise or lower, or stretch or shorten, the images of distant objects without involving mirages. Turbulent air can make distant objects appear to twinkle or shimmer. The term also applies to the refraction of sound. Atmospheric refraction is considered in measuring the position of both celestial and terrestrial objects.
[...]
Whenever possible, astronomers will schedule their observations around the times of culmination, when celestial objects are highest in the sky. Likewise, sailors will not shoot a star below 20° above the horizon.
[...]
Surveyors, on the other hand, will often schedule their observations in the afternoon, when the magnitude of refraction is minimum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction⚡
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#/media/File:Atmospheric_refraction_-_sunset_and_sunrise.png
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 03, 2022, 05:48:48 PM
Quote from: 3 16:38
im cool with beating the horse to a pulp. At the very least for clarity sake. I just want to recap, we agree what we observe is a close local light source, and the notion of a distant sun requires presumptions, correct? I've not seen an experiment that demonstrates how light would enter a synthesized atmosphere on a ball. However fraunhofer defraction doesn't require a presumption in order to demonstrate some of the optical effects near the apparent horizon on a flat plain. Please excuse the meme trail but the series of photos should help to illustrate what this type of defraction can do to objects near the horizon. I'll pause to let you take in the effect...
Quote from: 3 18:34
➽ Please excuse the meme trail

No harm, no foul. You don't need forgiveness.

➽ I just want to recap, we agree what we observe is a close local light source, and the notion of a distant sun requires presumptions, correct?

Repeating my words from my 30 14:40 post:
[...] I understand the point you are attempting to make about why divergent v. parallel rays don't prove flat or globe. Absent checks on globe - flat trig, I would agree that figuring distance to the sun is not calculable.

For purposes of this discussion I am assuming the distance to the sun is not known, requiring the notion of a distant sun to be built upon the model of a GE.

➽ what we observe is a close local light source[?]

What do you mean by "a close local light source"?

➽ I've not seen an experiment that demonstrates how light would enter a synthesized atmosphere on a ball.

By "ball" I assume you mean "earth". Please correct or verify.

What do you mean by "synthesized atmosphere"?

What do you mean by "synthesized atmosphere on a ball"?

➽ However fraunhofer defraction doesn't require a presumption in order to demonstrate some of the optical effects near the apparent horizon on a flat plain.

What "presumption" are you implying is avoided?

Now onto your images. Specifically the one with the text that claims "460 feet eye level".

The disproofs of the claim are right there in that very image.
Thus this causes me to question the validity of the similar images.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 04, 2022, 02:50:40 AM
Quote from: 3 18:59
close local light source, if you've seen a street light when it's a foggy night, you see the divergent/cerpuscular rays, similar to the rays we ovserve from the sun, without assuming or presuming a distant sun and the refraction that would be required. The last picture is where the camera is held up to eye level, all the other ones are siting on the ground and moving away from the 2 lids, on a flat warehouse floor. So the last two photos are the same distance but the last one he brings the camera up, increasing the angle, and you can then make out what was being obscured by the defraction at the horizon. Now these optics work in conjunction with the optics from the video with rob skiba, showing that with enough moisture in the air we can see how objects can apear to be magnified, and sink below the horizon, and the defraction demonstrates why it may be assumed things disappear from the bottom up, even on a flat surface. I hope that was concise enough. I might be able to link the video these photos were pulled from if you want to hear it explained in a different way.
Quote from: 3 19:27
Do you have rokfin? Chicago skyline experiment 1 @ -151 I'll find the defraction explanation wren i find it.
https://rokfin.com/stream/20360
Quote from: 3 20:14
i found it. If you don't have rokfin, you can probably find them through odyssey/lbry.
It's around @ -105
https://rokfin.com/stream/21248
Quote from: 4 15:39
3 16:38
➽ I just want to recap, we agree what we observe is a close local light source, and the notion of a distant sun requires presumptions, correct?

Yes... With caveat... The (my) alleged proof of a distant sun has NOT been verified, thus the (my) alleged proof is just a presumption until verified.

In my 30 14:54 post I said:
My sole point is the angle to the top of a structure is measurable and different according to the two models/theories.

The image attached, created for discussion with another, shows the fact that the closer one is to an object, the higher the angle to the top will be. Close enough and atmospheric issues are not observable. However close enough to see 1° GE-FE difference is far enough away to be affected by the atmosphere.

1.0 nautical mile = 1.150779 mile = 1/60 of a degree = 1 minute
So one degree = 69. nautical miles = 79.5 statute miles.
My image is 49.5 miles.

According to the curve calculator, the top of an object must be taller than 3,915 feet to be observed over the (assumed) curvature to verify a 1 degree difference due to roundness.

Your part in this discussion has caused me to conclude my image is NOT suitable as proof of GE. Likewise, the images you presented of Chicago are NOT suitable as proof of FE. Score one for you, personally. Adds nothing to the FE score though.

In my 3 15:22 post I quoted Wiki:
⚡Whenever possible, astronomers will schedule their observations around the times of culmination, when celestial objects are highest in the sky. Likewise, sailors will not shoot a star below 20° above the horizon.⚡

The errors caused by atmosphere are known and accounted for in celestial navigation. I did not know such errors would be so pronounced until looking into the optics of atmosphere due to this convo.

Now my curiosity is going to demand I visit that beach several times during the year. My A Priori theory is that I will see differing amounts of occlusion.

The attached image also shows the farther away the item observed, the smaller its angular size will be.

Angular size in degrees = inverse-tangent(size ÷ distance)
Distance = size ÷ tangent(angle)
Size = distance × tangent(angle)

The angular size of both the sun and the moon are about .5°
.5° = Inverse-tangent(0.0087268677907587893345361980612)

Distance to the sun = sun's size ÷ 0.00872
Sun's size = sun's distance × 0.00872

Distance to the moon = moon's size ÷ 0.00872
Moon's size = moon's distance ÷ 0.00872

My notes for the record and future point reminder:
The moon's angular size equals the sun's angular size because of total eclipse.
The moon is closer to earth than the sun because of total eclipse.
Moon - sun distance ratio and moon - sun size ratio will be the same.
Double distance:double size, 3X:3X, 4X:4X, etc.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 04, 2022, 03:31:09 PM
Quote from: 4 15:42
how are the sizes and distances to those celestial objects we see known?
Quote from: 4 16:30
4 15:42
➽ how are the sizes and distances to those celestial objects we see known?

DING DING DING! You have won recognition for asking excellent and intelligent questions.

To answer that question authoritatively requires acceptance of a GE model, something not yet proven in this discussion.

Now I am assuming you mean just the sun and the moon when you referred to celestial objects. Stars are also celestial objects.

Now I'm going to ask you to do a simple experiment. As you are on one side of a room, close one eye and hold one finger up to point up at some item across the room. Without moving, close that eye and simultaneously open the other. If you did it correctly, you are now pointing somewhere else.

This is called parallax.

Two eyes substitute for looking at something from two different locations. When focused on a far object the near object appears to change location relative to the far object. If the focus is on the near object, the far object's location appears to change relative to the near object.

Based on this simple observation, determining which of two nearly aligned objects is easy. Based on simply observing, with the correct filters for safety looking at the sun, one can determine that even the closest star is way farther away than the sun.

3 18:59
➽ you see the divergent/cerpuscular rays, similar to the rays we ovserve from the sun

According to your comments about crepuscular rays, the attached image shows the sun BELOW the clouds.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 04, 2022, 04:24:01 PM
Quote from: 4 17:01
i mean any of the celestial objects. The trick with your eyes demonstrates the different perspectives from the one eye to the other. How you go on to describe parallax is correct. But the initial experiment switching between the perspective of each eye separate, isn't parallax. In the photo yes the sun appears to be below those clouds. The clouds are much closer tho as perspective dictates that the farther the object the smaller and closer to the apparent horizon it will be. All these lights are flat and level, but from this terrestrial perspective the get lower and lower the farther they are and closer to the apparent horizon. So could i show you the flat earth kitchen?
Quote from: 4 17:02
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0euH6Wk4U&feature=youtu.be
Quote from: 4 17:17
this encapsules most of these optical phenomenon in one concise video. In not trying to gallop or what ever you called it. Just trying to give the best clarity. Take your time.
Quote from: 4 18:40
4 17:01
➽ How you go on to describe parallax is correct. But the initial experiment switching between the perspective of each eye separate, isn't parallax.

Are you claiming that each eye is not looking along a line of sight different from the other?

⚡Parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along 𝙩𝙬𝙤 𝙙𝙞𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines. Due to foreshortening, nearby objects show a larger parallax than farther objects when observed from different positions, so parallax can be used to determine distances.
Wikipedia⚡
Quote from: 4 18:44
4 17:01
➽ The clouds are much closer tho as perspective dictates that 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙗𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙧 and closer to the apparent horizon it 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙗𝙚.

That is exactly what I observed in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0euH6Wk4U&feature=youtu.be
I mark that video at 6 minutes or 1/10 of an hour. You owe me $2 for that waste of my time.

You do realize that the sun's size, the sun's angular diameter, does NOT change regardless of on the horizon or at the zenith?

4 17:01
➽ All these lights are flat and level, but from this terrestrial perspective the get lower and lower the farther they are and closer to the apparent horizon

And the still shot of the street lights shows the exact same thing. As the object in view recedes its angular size decreases. It is assumed all the lights are made the same and thus the same size. The pixelatation causing piss poor resolution makes the image I modified not very accurate.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 04, 2022, 08:16:17 PM
Quote from: 4 18:59
ok i see what you're saying about the parallax an i agree, that's correct.
Quote from: 4 18:56
remember the magnifying errect of moisture in the air...
https://youtu.be/bHma2XoaUnoII
And when there's very little moisture there is a noticeable change in size...
https://youtu.be/m-hIWRsfLmU
Quote from: 4 21:11
➽ remember the magnifying errect of moisture in the air...
https://youtu.be/bHma2XoaUnoII

I don't remember that which is not proven. And the link is broken.
Quote from: 4 19:29
wierd. Will it let this one work? https://youtu.be/bHma2XoaUII
Quote from: 5 21:23
Just giving you a head's up... I've been spending a S-load of time wrapping my mind around the trig formulas. Plus real life is being a PITA. Also, I didn't get a notification for your second attempt re: Atmo optics. That might have been my fault. I'm bookmarking the FB links when I get notifications and IIRC FB doesn't give notifications if there's one not clicked on. I gave you the like to notify acknowledgement of the post. Look for my on topic response, hopefully by, or even better, before tomorrow eve.
Quote from: 6 11:09
DAGNABBIT!

Life's being a PITA. I might not get back to posting the post I've been working on for several days...

In the mean while, this is a 4 minute song. Give it a listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw9gLjEGJrw
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 07, 2022, 04:11:53 PM
Quote from: 7 17:10
In my 3 15:22 post I quoted Wiki:
⚡Whenever possible, astronomers will schedule their observations around the times of culmination, when celestial objects are highest in the sky. Likewise, sailors will not shoot a star below 20° above the horizon.⚡
The errors caused by atmosphere are known.

Long time maritime celestial navigation has taught sailors nothing below 20°.

Blurry unfocused videos prove nothing.

Seems like you missed the point where I stated:
✨To my surprise, the claim is correct. The photo you supplied, and the one I supplied, "should" both be impossible on a globe.

Now back to the point I was going to make.

Something farther away than the sun, and above 20° above the horizon will be suitable for proving GE.

How about Polaris? Its angle of Declination is +89° 15′ 50.8″

Have a friend go to Pembina, North Dakota. Have another go to Brownsville, Texas at the same time of night. Have them shoot the angle of declination from their positions. The GE model says the difference in angles will be about 22°.

The GE model also says Polaris will be above the horizon the same degrees as the latitude of the observer.

In my travels to states both north and south, I have personally experienced and seen the change in the declination of Polaris.

Based upon the distance between Pembina and Brownsville, the angles of declination of Polaris, and the FE theory, Polaris is NOT 90° above the area on earth designated as "the north pole".

I will be happy to share the math and explain how I got to my conclusion, but only if requested prior to November 7, 2022. Boomer with CRS.

The attached image is where Polaris would be directly overhead according to FE theory.

I can't find the post where I said FE'ers will be removed from my feed if they don't answer questions about their FE beliefs. (I wanted to quote myself.) Regardless, with the time spent on the trig, I now will start asking questions and requesting data about the FE model of Earth and FE physics reality.

How thick is this FE?
What is below the surface of the other side of this FE?

Please post a link to a hi-rez FE map. I want to see if the map is a Mercator projection.
Please mark or indicate how I can find the pinpoint on this map to locate the north pole.
Please explain how a compass always points to this location on a FE.

How did you enjoy this music in this YT vid?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw9gLjEGJrw
Quote from: 7 18:07
first how do you know it(polaris) is father than the sun? Second, the gleasons ae map is the map that seems to be most accurate. With a magnetic north in the center, and Antarctica incompassing the known world(Antarctic treaty preventing independent exploration boyond the 60th degree parallel south) . We don't make claims about how deep the earth could be, we know the deepest hole ever dug is the bore hole in Russia, where they used ground penetrating radar, and it was wrong every step of the way. So i would have to ask how do globe believers Know what any deeper than that? And on this tread, the claim of the supposed core of the earth is a molten magnet. How does that reconcile with the curie point? But to your point polaris would apear lower in the sky the farther towards the south you go due to perspective. So this wouldn't prove anything either way. I'm asking around for some verification on the farthest south its been recorded, and I'll have to get that information to you when it comes in.
Quote from: 7 18:13
How'd you like the CS&N music. I got errands to run when wife gets back. Dunno that I'll get a reply posted before then.
Quote
it was pretty chill 😎



file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/RJJ026.png
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 08, 2022, 12:16:58 AM
Quote from: 8 16:08
I'm going to kick these minor points out of the discussion. The meat of the discussion post was almost to the Fecalbook limit of 8000 characters.

➽ We don't make claims about how deep the earth could be

Smart move tactically. Bad move for proving FE model.
What makes the FE hold its shape?

➽ So i would have to ask how do globe believers Know what any deeper than that?

I am assuming that by "what any deeper" you are challenging for data on how far from the top surface to the bottom surface as in how deep would a hole be that comes out the other side and how do GE's know?

Trigonometry. A GE has a diameter. This diameter is knowable by trig calcs.

➽ the claim of the supposed core of the earth is a molten magnet. How does that reconcile with the curie point?

Eddy Currents. Also how frictionless brakes work with magnets on amusement park rides.

➽ Antarctica incompassing the known world

This is a claim that is unsupported. And if the source of the this claim is in error, then this claim based upon that source is also in error.

I asked you for an accurate map of the FE. You did not provide the requested resource. You did provide a bread-crumb for me when you stated, "the gleasons ae map is the map that seems to be most accurate.". You seem to be unaware that Gleason's map is a Mercator projection of half a globe.

If you don't know what such a 3d to a 2d projection is, I will draw an image explaining.

➽ (Antarctic treaty preventing independent exploration boyond the 60th degree parallel south)

This is a claim that is presently unsupported. You've brought it up twice now. Recall, I wrote: I am nescient of the words of this treaty. So I only have a half challenge on the assumption that the treaty is hiding something.  The treaty is a null issue on the FE-GE discussion.
Quote from: 8 16:29
1. What makes the FE hold its "shape" is the same thing that gives a lake its shape. The land that's higher that gives lateral pressure. (Think a pond, then a lake, then, an ocean, water that's filled a basin.)
2. How would you know the depth to the core using an equation using "r" as a value for radius, when we both agree our determining radius is based on the sticks and shadows experiment that works on an fe modle without any presumptions?
Quote from: 8 16:31
3. Eddy currents are subject to heat because of the cury point magnets lose their magnetism, so how is a presumed molten core presumed to have any magnetism?
Quote from: 8 16:35
the gleasons map was published first, if anything the gleasons map was stitched over a globe, witch may account for the many discrepancies in the southern Oceans and why there is a correction for ships sailing southern oceans.
Quote from: 8 16:41
And here is an answer to the Antarctic treaty. https://youtu.be/SmYRFtY_jfQ
Quote from: 8 17:50
That video is 30 minutes long in case anybody else is curious.

I'm only 6 minutes into this video.

These are the words of the video poster:

💩For the globe trolls (whether you're paid trolls or just insane globe zealots who have nothing better to do than attack flat earthers) - this is my classroom and if you want to comment here, there are a few rules:  (1) no spamming, including group attacks - keep to your one comment and its thread; (2) no personal insults; (3) do not link to propaganda videos; (4) stay relevant to the topic at hand; and, (5) treat everyone here, especially my friends, with respect and kindness.  And no, I don't have to follow my own rules.  Violators will be banned immediately and I don't think anyone's going to shed any tears for you.💩

So I'll hold my nose and listen while I read the actual words of the treaty that I found while I was listening to six shit minutes at the beginning.

https://documents.ats.aq/recatt/att005_e.pdf
The treaty itself is only 2121 words.

... Nope. Couldn't do it. ... And with that annoying distraction out of the way, I am going to repeat what I have already written:

The treaty is a null issue on the FE-GE discussion.

Now back to composing my answer to the valid question:
➽ first how do you know it(polaris) is father than the sun?
Quote from: 8 17:53
basicly, independent travel beyond the 60⁰th south parallel is banned. There are several videos of people being turnded around by destroyers
Quote from: 8 17:54
The treaty is a null issue on the FE-GE discussion.
Quote from: 8 17:58
How is that a null to the issue? If the earth is actually a plane and it could be proven that Antarctica is actually a shoreline with land extending beyond but we are restricted from access. That's suspicious, at the least.
Quote from: 8 18:10
Okay...? I'll stipulate that that is indeed suspicious.

It still has absolutely no bearing on our discussion. You're not going there unless you be fucking rich. I have no reason to go there and have my testicles turn black and fall off from frostbite.

Your implied claim that they are not allowing anyone access to proof has absolutely no bearing on what proof you already have and can present.

⬭ ⬭ ⬭ ⬭ ⬭ ⬭ ⬭ ⬭ ⬭ ⬭

➽ first how do you know it(polaris) is father than the sun?

Excellent question, which, sorry, 'scuse my somewhat snarky reply, How do you know it isn't?

Now keeping with the intent of this discussion to examine and discuss facts, as I wrote before, trigonometry.

I will specifically answer this question of distance in another post.

I now attempt a detailed better presentation of how I reach the factual conclusions I reach.

Do all the stars appear to circle Polaris, thus making Polaris the center of this rotation?
Hint, time lapse photography.
https://search.brave.com/images?q=Polaris%20time%20lapse%20photography

Are all those stars circling some central point, or is the flat earth spinning under that central point? What is the mechanism or physics behind this motion?
What say the FE model?
These questions can be considered rhetorical because the motion has no bearing on the trig, which is why I originally chose Polaris. Motion and the related time of day have no bearing on the trig for Polaris.

➽ [Gleason's] map is the map that seems to be most accurate. With a magnetic north in the center,[...]

Is this center of rotation basically 90° straight up from this pole in the center of the Gleason map?

➽ I'm asking around for some verification on the farthest south its [Polaris] been recorded, and I'll have to get that information to you when it comes in.

Excellent. Test that against the GE model that calculates Polaris is basically unviewable south of the Equator. How far south depends on the elevation of the viewer.

And by south on Gleason's map you are intending any bearing directly away from the center pole point??

<evil laugh>
Imma turn that research on its head...

♬♩♫♪ "When you see the Southern Cross for the first time." ♩♪♫♬

⚡Crux is a constellation of the southern sky that is centred on four bright stars in a cross-shaped asterism commonly known as the Southern Cross⚡
⚡In tropical regions Crux can be seen in the sky from April to June. ⚡

➽ But to your point polaris would apear lower in the sky the farther towards the south you go due to perspective. So this wouldn't prove anything either way.

That is where you err.

This apparent elevation can be measured as an angular measure. If the distance to the point directly under some object doubles, the angular measure will half. This relationship is linear. This angular measure can actually be... measured. With trig, one angular measure and one distance measure is all that is required to figure out the other two angles and the other two distances.

Astral navigation is based upon the concept that any thing in the sky, at any given time, is directly overhead of some point on the earth... Be it the sun, the moon, or the stars. (I'm ignoring the planets. As I understand the word, planet meant wanderer. The angle between any given star and the wanderer changes over time. I'm also ignoring "retrograde motion", which is why they're called wanderers.)

The definitive answer to the GE - FE model debate is where some elevated object like a star is 90° straight up over some location on the earth. The angles of declination from two different points on the earth to this object will confirm or deny GE or FE. Obviously only one model is going to be accurate for navigation.

Brownsville to Pembina distance is?
1594 miles calculated based on the latitudes of the two locations and a GE. I will show the math if requested. The differences in the angles of declination are based upon Polaris being above the rotational point of the "pole" on the earth.

I then calculated the 90° straight up location on a flat earth using those same angles. The FE model puts the Polaris 90° straight up point 2767 miles north of Brownsville, and 1173 miles north of Pembina as shown on my last post's image attachment. I calculated the elevation of Polaris' as 1350 miles above its 90° straight up point. This location 90° straight up point location is in error by 1652 miles; off by about 60%.

Any two points on the earth, not the same distance from the 90° straight up point can be used to check the accuracy of the FE - GE models. Provided the object measured is greater than 20° above the horizon for better accuracy.

➽ With a magnetic north in the center,

Imagine that... A magnetic pole that compass needles align to...

I've never played with a magnet that only had a north pole. So there simply MUST be a south pole. Where is it on your flat earth?

Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 08, 2022, 04:53:10 PM
Quote from: 8 18:30
1. polaris being dead center, yes any point in the equestrial circle can use it for navigation.
2. It seems to favor that of a toroidal field or primer field. https://youtu.be/9EPlyiW-xGI
3. Yes south would be every direction away from the center.
I'll add that there used to be a hole in the Georgia guide stones that pointed right to polaris. Adding to the fact that it doesn't move, ever
Quote from: 8 18:40
https://youtu.be/CSIPolpvjBY
Quote from: 9 14:25
8 18:30
➽ Adding to the fact that [Polaris] doesn't move, ever

That statement is factually in error. The factual error is less than .74°, or 3/4 of a degree.
Polaris angle of Declination is +89° 15′ 50.8″, not +90° 00′ 00.0″

So Polaris does indeed move... Just not enough to matter in the short term (24 hour) span.
In the long term: Precession:

📖Currently, Earth's pole stars are Polaris (Alpha Ursae Minoris), a bright magnitude-2 star aligned approximately with its northern axis that serves as a pre-eminent star in celestial navigation, and a much dimmer magnitude-5.5 star on its southern axis, Polaris Australis (Sigma Octantis).

From around 1700 BC until just after 300 AD, Kochab (Beta Ursae Minoris) and Pherkad (Gamma Ursae Minoris) were twin northern pole stars, though neither was as close to the pole as Polaris is now. 📖

https://search.brave.com/search?q=astroarchaeology
and
https://search.brave.com/search?q=g%C3%B6bekli+tepehttps://search.brave.com/search?q=astroarchaeology

➽ 2. It seems to favor that of a toroidal field or primer field. https://youtu.be/9EPlyiW-xGI

I don't know what "It" refers to. I am assuming my comment about a mono-pole magnet. The provided link does address the issue of the apparent monopole magnet for the FE theory. However, what the vid shows is NOT a monopole magnet. The magnet is a bowl shaped tube. The small opening rim is one polarity, the large opening rim is the other pole. See the attached screencap showing the rims sticking to each other.

Good vid for the macro physics look-see. Thanks. I want to watch it beyond just skimming it to find your FE point.

It is clear the bowls are made of magnetic material. What is the magnetic material that would make a mag field with a pole in the center of a disc and the other pole at the rim of the disk. GE says Eddy Currents in molten iron. FE says:?

Off topic is a discussion of magnetic eddy currents in plasma... Which is what the vid was about.

Again: 𝓨𝓸𝓾 𝓼𝓮𝓮𝓶 𝓽𝓸 𝓫𝓮 𝓾𝓷𝓪𝔀𝓪𝓻𝓮 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓖𝓵𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓸𝓷'𝓼 𝓶𝓪𝓹 𝓲𝓼 𝓪 𝓜𝓮𝓻𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓸𝓻 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓳𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓸𝓯 𝓱𝓪𝓵𝓯 𝓪 𝓰𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓮.
If you don't know what such a 3d to a 2d projection is, I will draw an image explaining.
Quote from: 9 14:42
sounds like a cool story. But the shaft in the great pyramids still point to polaris, and there's no recorded time of another star being there. In at least the last 40 years of the Georgia guide stones being up, polaris didn't move even a half a degree. There is no southern pole star. https://youtu.be/DWsWNsuP-KI
Quote from: 9 14:42
https://www.facebook.com/lomaclan1221/videos/630206361966206/?idorvanity=2605029686242858
Quote from: 9 14:42
compasses only point north.
Quote from: 9 14:44
And a compass on a ball would be pointing to "outer space"
Quote from: 9 15:16
I am still composing my answer to the valid question:
➽ first how do you know it(polaris) is father than the sun?

When I am done doing that, I will then turn my attention to your https://search.brave.com/search?q=Gish+Gallop
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 09, 2022, 08:17:50 AM
Quote from: 11 9:27
You are indeed Gish Galloping. I don't think you are doing deliberately... So discussion will continue.

I've just finished reviewing the discussion because I missed seeing some of your posts.

I do not know if you actually know any trig and how to use it. No matter. Because of this discussion, I am essentially writing a tutorial/primer on the topic. This is why I am not addressing your Gish Gallop topics.

You were so focused on what you were posting, you ignored the main points of my 8 18:10 post. So I am reposting that portion.

I forgot to attach this image the first time. The attached image is where Polaris would be directly overhead according to FE theory.

Please address the concepts I've re-posted.
♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢
7 18:07
➽ But to your point polaris would apear lower in the sky the farther towards the south you go due to perspective. So this wouldn't prove anything either way.

That is where you err.

This apparent elevation can be measured as an angular measure. If the distance to the point directly under some object doubles, the angular measure will half. This relationship is linear. This angular measure can actually be... measured. With trig, one angular measure and one distance measure is all that is required to figure out the other two angles and the other two distances.

Astral navigation is based upon the concept that any thing in the sky, at any given time, is directly overhead of some point on the earth... Be it the sun, the moon, or the stars. (I'm ignoring the planets. As I understand the word, planet meant wanderer. The angle between any given star and the wanderer changes over time. I'm also ignoring "retrograde motion", which is why they're called wanderers.)

The definitive answer to the GE - FE model debate is where some elevated object like a star is 90° straight up over some location on the earth. The angles of declination from two different points on the earth to this object will confirm or deny GE or FE. Obviously only one model is going to be accurate for navigation.

Brownsville to Pembina distance is?
1594 miles calculated based on the latitudes of the two locations and a GE. I will show the math if requested. The differences in the angles of declination are based upon Polaris being above the rotational point of the "pole" on the earth.

I then calculated the 90° straight up location on a flat earth using those same angles. The FE model puts the Polaris 90° straight up point 2767 miles north of Brownsville, and 1173 miles north of Pembina as shown on my last post's image attachment. I calculated the elevation of Polaris' as 1350 miles above its 90° straight up point. This location 90° straight up point location is in error by 1652 miles; off by about 60%.

Any two points on the earth, not the same distance from the 90° straight up point can be used to check the accuracy of the FE - GE models. Provided the object measured is greater than 20° above the horizon for better accuracy.
♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 11, 2022, 08:53:08 AM
Quote from: 11 9:37
i don't mean to gish gallop. But i thought the video around 3 mins would explain what you're talking about. Perspective has to be taken into account https://www.facebook.com/lomac.../videos/630206361966206/...
Quote from: 11 9:52
No it does not. I can state that without even viewing the video that I have to join the group to see.

Because I understand trigonometry.

I've had this post in the can for at least two days:

7 18:07
➽ first how do you know it(polaris) is father than the sun?

4 15:42
➽ how are the sizes and distances to those celestial objects we see known?

Please refer to the attached illustration.
There is a flat earth model on top and a globe earth model on the bottom.

When putting lines on an M$ Paint creation, holding the shift key while dragging the line into existence will snap the line to horizontal, vertical, or 45°.

The triangle bounded by the red angled lines is larger on the GE model. In both models, the length from earth to the unknown elevation is the same. The length from the baselines of the triangles is not.

This post is just a preview of a sort. I've one more needing to be proof read by my wife who knows nothing of trigonometry, to check that I have written something understandable. It uses this attached image.

I will re-write that page with different numbers. The re-write will be mostly copy-paste with different numbers. The re-draw edit of this image will be a little more demanding of me.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 11, 2022, 10:36:02 AM
Quote from: 11 10:32
directly under polaris.
Quote from: 11 10:32
Moving south.
Quote from: 11 10:43
ill admit i don't understand what you're trying to show me with those angles. Since curvature isn't observed in nature. It's kinda like the difference between algebra and arithmetic. Arithmetic is like saying. "Bob has three apples and gives you one, how many does bob have" vs algebra where you say, "if bob has three apples ang gives you one, how many does bob have?" The latter leaves open a presumption that "if" bob has three apples. That's what your doing right now. "If earth is a globe with a radius of "x", then the sun is "y" distance and is "z" size. That's all based on a presumption that is refuted by long distance observation and modern optics.
Quote from: 11 11:10
i think this one is viewable for you lmk if it's not.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10227934285492467&id=1531867299
Quote from: 11 12:08
11 10:43
➽ ill admit i don't understand what you're trying to show me with those angles.

Thank you. That tells me you have no clue about trigonometry. My observed fact of your failure to address my words about angles, I suspected as much.

That makes it my burden to educate you on trig calc's... Provided you are willing to learn.

I am writing: a webpage: Trigonometry for Flat Earthers.
That is why I'm not being as responsive to your posts as I was.

➽ Since curvature isn't observed in nature.

That is a claim that has been refuted so many times... The curvature is clearly visible when one is at a high enough altitude.

About 1.28 light seconds of altitude away from Earth, or 238900 miles.

Same with something a little closer, 62 miles.
https://www.space.com/16769-spaceshipone-first-private-spacecraft.html

➽ The latter leaves open a presumption that "if" bob has three apples. That's what your doing right now. "If earth is a globe with a radius of "x", then the sun is "y" distance and is "z" size.

By that statement, you have informed me that you are not reading my entire posts, or if you are, you have CRS worse than my Boomer ass has.

I repeat:
✪ Please refer to the attached illustration.
There is a flat earth model on top and a globe earth model on the bottom. ✪

Without math (to include trig) it's not science. I am going to compare the math of your FE and my GE.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 11, 2022, 11:43:56 AM
Quote from: 11 12:20
hold up. We both agree that the chicago skyline should not be visible in that picture. This is another impossible picture on a globe. The only place you've ever seen curvature is when a fisheye lens is used, or cgi.
Quote from: 11 12:33
you're using and equation using r for radius and we haven't established a radius.
Quote from: 12 11:17
11 10:43
➽ ill admit i don't understand what you're trying to show me with those angles.

Okay. I'm going to go over this slowly.

Please refer to the attached illustration.
⚠ There is a flat earth model on top and a globe earth model on the bottom. ⚠

There are only two angles on this image. The top elevation of both thick black objects is the same height.
This image shows and visually represents what a difference in angles would be, FE v. GE.

Do you understand that this is how FE - GE is definitively determined?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 12, 2022, 11:50:40 AM
Quote from: 12 11:33
Yes i see that. I'm not getting your point, tho.
Quote from: 12 11:35
if you're saying that the top of the pole is polaris. And at the equator your looking at a 0⁰ or right near the horizon. I'm showing you this is how perspective works and it does the same on the fe model in an auto cad.
Quote from: 12 11:37
your graphic also shows curvature. The chicago skyline photo refutes the claimed radius. And if that's not enough this photo refutes the globes curve calculator even more. You have to determine "r" for any of your graphics to work.
Quote from: 12 12:47
I am calling you out on your Gish Galloping.
I'm also calling you on your failure to look up what the term means.
Now I'm going to provide the definition you did not look up.

📖 The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. It's essentially a conveyor belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.

Although it takes a trivial amount of effort on the Galloper's part to make each individual point before skipping to the next (especially if they cite from a pre-concocted list of Gallop arguments), a refutation of the same Gallop may likely take much longer and require significantly more effort (per the basic principle that it's always easier to make a mess than to clean it back up again).
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop 📖

What I see you doing, deliberate or not, is throwing shit at the wall hoping some will stick.

➽ if you're saying that the top of the pole is polaris.

The only thing you need to focus on for now is that the top elevation of both thick black objects is some elevated point directly above some point on the FE and the GE respectively. And that the elevated point is exactly the same in both models depicted.

Sorry... It's a "math" thing.
Until I discuss angular size with you I don't want to read another thing about "perspective".

I've got all your words saved in an archive of this discussion. Much easier to navigate than Fecalbook, though since it's only you and I commenting, FB is actually usable for backtracking what was written. And for confirming that which you didn't read or don't remember... Which I am NOT going to address. I want you focused on what I am presenting now.

Look at this image. Do you see that if the the top elevation of both thick black objects is increased, then the angles of both the FE and the GE models will increase?

THIS! Is how the FE - GE is determined. The location directly under some elevated object, and the angle and location of the observer.

I will remind you from sailing navigation going back 1,500 years, for accuracy, nothing below 20°.

Do you understand that angles is how FE - GE is determined?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 12, 2022, 12:16:26 PM
Quote from: 12 13:02
i looked up the definition prior. Trying to understand what you're getting at with this graphic. As perspective dictates that objects farther away apear at a lower angle to us either way.
Quote from: 12 13:09
the angles of the 2 red buildings are different but the red buildings are the same hight. Perspective makes them apear to the observer at different angles. I'm trying to understand what you're getting all with your graphic.
Quote from: 12 13:15
<Sigh...> What do you understand about angular measure?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 12, 2022, 12:42:10 PM
Quote from: 12 13:16
i know when something is less than .2 arch seconds your eye cannot resolve it and when something gets farther its angular size decreases to the point it vanishes. The angular resolution limits of your eyes' primary cause is fraunhofer defraction at eye level.
Quote from: 12 13:21
so when viewing polaris at let's say +60⁰north latitude, it will apear at a greater angle to the observer than one standing at +35⁰ north latitude. But again i don't see how you determine "r" using this method.
Quote from: 12 13:41
13 13:21
➽ i don't see how you determine "r" using this method.

The angles from the viewpoint of the two different latitudes will be the GE angles of declination to Polaris. With that knowledge and the distance between the two observation points, not only is GE - FE determined, so too is the distance to Polaris.

On a GE there are actually two distances between the observation points. The chord and the arc. So a question arises as to which of those two distances is used by FE. And there is a third distance available for FE to use.

If this makes sense to you, I'll show you how to calculate the difference between what FE says and GE says for the distance to Polaris.

Heads up I'll be away from my computer for about an hour. I'll pick up where we leave off when I get back.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 12, 2022, 04:11:43 PM
Quote from: 12 13:52
well fe doesn't claim a distance to polaris. Only the location as it being at the center of the world pond, and relative angle to position within the circles (arctic circle,tropic of cancer and a far south as the equator) And i would love to see how the distance to polaris is done on the globe model. (Being as all the sizes and distances of all the celestial bodies are determined by the size of the earth, which we both agree we have not determined this far in our conversation("r"))
Quote from: 12 19:45
12 13:52
➽ well fe doesn't claim a distance to polaris.
➽ (Being as all the sizes and distances of all the celestial bodies are determined by the size of the earth, which we both agree we have not determined this far in our conversation("r"))

Both observations are correct.

I am using the same image as a base. I am not counting pixels to scale it properly. I am only using it for reference as to what value goes where in the equation.

The distance from Barstow California to Indian Cabins Alberta is taken right off of Gobble Maps. I am using this distance on the FE depiction. I am using this value with these angles to calculate the elevation on an FE map.

I want to make sure I'm not posting errors due to brain hiccups. As a Boomer, my short term CRS is making it hard for me to juggle eggs. I will do the same thing with a GE map / model either tonight or tomorrow. I need some Lerts. I don't think anybody in the neighborhood can loan me a lert.

Line a-d = 1714 miles.
Line a-c = Y
Line c-d = Y-1714

Tangent of 60⁰ = 1.7320508075688772935274463415059
X = Tan(60) * (Y-1714)
X = 1.732 * (Y-1714)
X = (1.732 * Y)-(1.732 x 1714)
X = 1.732Y - 2,968.6


Tangent of 35⁰ = 0.70020753820970977945852271944483
X = Tan(35) * (Y)
X = 0.7Y

X = 0.7Y = 1.732Y - 2968.6
X = 2968.6 = 1.732Y - 0.7Y
X =  2968.6 = 1.032Y
Y= 2968.6 / 1.032
Y = 2876.6
X = 0.7 *  2876.6
X = 2013.6

X = Line b-c
Line c-d = Y-1714
Line c-d = 2876.6 - 1714
Line c-d = 1162.6
Check values
X = Tan(60) * 1162
X = 2013.7
X = Tan(35) * 2876.6
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 12, 2022, 08:36:28 PM
Quote from: 12 21:25
i follow. Is this where you get the difference between the moon on either side of the earth, by chance?
Quote from: 12 21:36
I've not made the case for a GE yet. That is presently an unproven claim on my part in re: GE. But yes, the diameter makes the baseline for measuring the angles and this determines distance.

In the case of the moon and the sun, the angular measure, the angular diameter is 0.5⁰. What is known from that is that the ratio of moon & sun diameters is the same as their respective inverse distance from earth ratio.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 15, 2022, 11:40:56 AM
In keeping within the envelope this discussion creates, I am looking to show the math that definitively proves GE. The Polaris example of the math on the previous FE model shows how it's done.

According to GE, Polaris' distance is unsettled. 433 - 448 light-years. According to GE, Earth's distance to the sun is 93,000,000 miles.

For purpose and mechanics of this discussion, for now I label 433 LY's and 93,000,000 miles an assumption. I used these figures for my investigative calculations. The purpose being how small of an angular difference.

My calc's show only 0.000,002,09° difference. 93e6 / 2.3e15. So that does not prove nor disprove because of angular resolution. I messed with a sextant that I inherited. My opinion of this particular sextant is +/- 0.5° margin of error. I doubt you have a more precise instrument and I know I don't.

Santa Barbara, CA
34.42352697861604, -119.69657200920265

Surf City, NC
34.42961212770392, -77.55404848374764

Difference
-42.14252352545501

Because those two cities are not on the equator, the declination angles will be lower by the number of degrees latitude. I don't care to have to teach myself 3D trig. I am ignoring that error so that how the sun's elevation a.k.a. distance is determined along with the earth's circumference and radius.

If the sun's zenith is 90° over Santa Barbara, and at exactly the same time, the sun's angle of declination is 42° west of Surf City... The following calc's apply.

As depicted in SUN 1:

The declination of the sun is 90° above Santa Barbara.
The declination of the sun is X° (unknown) above Surf City.
The elevation - distance of the sun above Santa Barbara is Y (unknown).

Ground Truth:

Gobble Maps routing shows 2716 miles. I am using that as my ground truth.

As I write this, I am undecided if I want to do the Polaris flat earth exercise with this ground truth that will show a discrepancy and the 90° will not be over Santa Barbara.

Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 15, 2022, 06:35:57 PM
Quote from: 15 19:51
In keeping within the envelope this discussion creates, I am looking to show the math that definitively proves GE. The Polaris example of the math on the previous FE model shows how it's done.

According to GE, Polaris' distance is unsettled. 433 - 448 light-years. According to GE, Earth's distance to the sun is 93,000,000 miles.

For purpose and mechanics of this discussion, for now I label 433 LY's and 93,000,000 miles an assumption. I used these figures for my investigative calculations. The purpose being how small is the angular difference.

My calc's show only 0.000,002,09° difference. 93e6 / 2.3e15. So that does not prove nor disprove because of angular resolution. I messed with a sextant that I inherited. My opinion of this particular sextant is +/- 0.5° margin of error. I doubt you have a more precise instrument and I know I don't.

These negative numbered specifications are based upon "Right Ascension", which in terms of our discussion, is only a GE assumption at this time. The positive numbers are angles of latitude and again is only a GE assumption at this time.

On the assumption of a GE, these numbers allow for a rudimentary calculation of earth's "r".

Santa Barbara, CA
34.42352697861604, -119.69657200920265

Surf City, NC
34.42961212770392, -77.55404848374764

Difference
-42.14252352545501°

r = 1358 miles ÷ Sine(21°)
r = 1358 miles ÷ 0.3583679
r = 3789 miles

The Wikipedia article claims 3959.
This is a discrepancy of 170 miles in radius.
Back calculating for gross error check, The Wiki value calc's the value of the ground truth to a 129 mile discrepancy.
I will play with again later.

The sine of 42 is:
0.66913060635885821382627333068678
The sine of 42.5 is:
0.67559020761566024434833935367435
The difference is:
0.00645960125680203052206602298757

Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 16, 2022, 10:36:50 AM
Quote from: 16 11:35
Okay... The discrepancy was bugging me. I found where the discrepancy got into the math. I found the problem. I was the error.

I forgot that the latitude circumference decreases as latitude increases. The lines of meridian, the lines of longitude are widest at the equator and all converge on the pole locations.

Caveat: In my opinion, I have not yet proved a GE.

r₀ is the real radius of the globe * cos(0°)
cos(0°) = 1

r₄₅ = r₀ * cos(45°)
cos(45°) = 0.707
r₄₅ = r₀ * 0.707

r₂₃ = r₀ * cos(23°)
cos(23°) = 0.920
r₂₃ = r₀ * 0.920

And of course, the latitudes of SC and SB are about 34.4°

r₃₄ = r₀ * cos(34.4°)
cos(34.4°) = 0.825
r₃₄ = r₀ * 0.825

Now I need to calculate the actual difference in the line of sight angles by calculating actual degrees of angular separation of the two locations. These line of sight angles will be different depending upon FE or GE ground angle orientation.
Quote from: 16 11:51
I'm waiting for you to get to your point... reminder assumed distances to lights in the sky isn't scientific... but for the sake of your claim, go on.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 16, 2022, 01:39:42 PM
Quote from: 17 9:16
➽ I'm waiting for you to get to your point

So am I.

In keeping within the envelope this discussion creates, I am looking to show the math that definitively proves GE. My original thought was, I "know" GE because math (trig).

In the exercise of this discussion, I have to change that claim to I "believe" GE because math (trig).

I know how it is and was done. In order to explain how trig gives answers, I had to do the trig... And explain it. So I am learning as I am teaching. Having done this, I'm back to I "know" GE because math (trig).

➽ reminder assumed distances to lights in the sky isn't scientific

The whole point of my doing trig calc's is to determine distances. And prove those distances.

I used the calculation end result of others to Polaris to check my math. The discrepancies sent me back to the calculator. In doing the trig for the below, the difference between the tangents of 89.99832672° and 89.9° is a factor of 6.

And a note to myself: Those "lights" in the sky.
♔ ♕ ♖ ♗ ♘ ♙
I want to make clear that I am using the Gobble Maps routing mileage from Surf City to Santa Barbara for "Ground Truth". This is a measurement that pegs the math to a physical reality. This distance is either a chord measurement in the FE model, or an arc measurement in the GE model.

I used the Wiki claim of r = 3959 to back calculate the angular distance between the two cities on a GE.
I used the ground truth as an arc between the two cities.
Circumference = 2 pi r = 2 * 3.14159 * 3959
Circumference = 24,875

Arc° = Ground truth / 24,875 * 360°
Arc° = 2716 / 24,875 * 360°
Arc° = 0.109 * 360°
Arc° = 0.109 * 360°
Arc° = 39.3°

Ground truth = 2716

On FE...

Santa Barbara LOS angle = 90°
Surf City line of sight angle = 89.99832672°

On GE...
Santa Barbara LOS angle = 90°
Surf City LOS angle = 89.99832672° - angle of separation SB to center back to SC.
Surf City LOS angle = 89.99832672° - 39.3°.
Surf City LOS angle = 50.69832672°

That is how globe earth is determined.

On FE & GE:
Ground truth distance = 2716

Elevation on FE = tangent (50.698°) * Ground truth
3,318.1 = 1.221688 * 2716

Elevation on GE = Tan(89.99832672°) * ground truth
93 million = 34,241.59 * 2716
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 17, 2022, 09:45:43 AM
Quote from: 17 10:17
Dale Eastman again the assumption of "r" is refuted by our actual scientific (observable, measurable, repeatable, verifiable) observations. So this is the problem we run into. If "r" then "x". That's why i make the analogy of "if Bob has three apples, then..." but your not showing Bob having the apples. Polaris is claimed to be 48 times bigger than the sun. So imagine the sun claimed to be 8, light minutes away. If we had the sun at one mile above your head, it would fill your sky horizon to horizon, and then you move it 93 million miles away, so it's where we see it(about the size of a coin held at arm's length). If you doubled the distance how big would it be? (16 light minutes) Could you see it? Were just talking angular size, the inverse square law of light would be a whole other thing on top of this but for now we'll stick with the angular size. What of we doubled the distance again? (32 light minutes) and again so now the sun is 8 times the distance(32x2=64, we'll call it a light hour) you think we could see the sun? Now with Polaris being claimed at 48 times bigger than the sun, at 2 (48 light hours, 2 light days we wouldn't be able to see Polaris. They claim is 400 and some change light years away. Do you think you could see it at that distance, even ignoring the inverse square law of light?
Quote from: UNPACK

again the assumption of "r" is refuted by our actual scientific (observable, measurable, repeatable, verifiable) observations.

So this is the problem we run into. If "r" then "x". That's why i make the analogy of "if Bob has three apples, then..." but your not showing Bob having the apples.

Polaris is claimed to be 48 times bigger than the sun. So imagine the sun claimed to be 8, light minutes away. If we had the sun at one mile above your head, it would fill your sky horizon to horizon, and then you move it 93 million miles away, so it's where we see it(about the size of a coin held at arm's length).

If you doubled the distance how big would it be? (16 light minutes) Could you see it? Were just talking angular size, the inverse square law of light would be a whole other thing on top of this but for now we'll stick with the angular size.

What of we doubled the distance again? (32 light minutes) and again so now the sun is 8 times the distance(32x2=64, we'll call it a light hour) you think we could see the sun?

Now with Polaris being claimed at 48 times bigger than the sun, at 2 (48 light hours, 2 light days we wouldn't be able to see Polaris.

They claim is 400 and some change light years away. Do you think you could see it at that distance, even ignoring the inverse square law of light?
Quote from: 17 11:47
➽ I'm waiting for you to get to your point

So am I. ⛒waiting to get to my point. I had to do the math to my own satisfaction first. And I shared the math.⛒

➽ again the assumption of "r" is refuted by our actual scientific (observable, measurable, repeatable, verifiable) observations.

That is a naked claim on your part. You have espoused mere opinion.

Show me the math of "measurable" observations to determine the value of "r" or its non existence.

I've shown you the math to prove the existence of "r" by showing how a GE is determined. You have chosen to ignore the simple fact... A simple fact that I must now specifically point out.

On a flat earth, at the exact same time, the sun's declination will be 90° in Santa Barbara and 89.99832672° in Surf City.
On a globe earth, at the exact same time, the sun's declination will be 90° in Santa Barbara and 50.6° in Surf City.

All that needs to be done is have two friends on opposite coasts measure the angle to the sun at exactly the same time.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 17, 2022, 11:38:10 AM
Quote
you can't prove a negative. But the physics of any liquid is to find and maintain level. Anything from the size of a cup, to a bath tub to a pond, lake, and even the oceans maintain level. The city of chicago from across lake Michigan shows at least 40 to 50 miles of flat water. There were several laser experiments performed by fecore showing a flat level surface at 12 miles. https://youtu.be/YsSanuUNygI
The burden of proof lies with the positive claim. The globe with a circumference of 24,900 miles is the claim. This is the world record for long distance photography. This is another peice of evidence that refutes your "r".
Quote from: 17 12:09
so before you start doing more math based on assumptions and presumption how do you determine "r"?
Quote from: 17 12:13
sorry for the gallop
Quote from: 17 12:37
➽ sorry for the gallop

You are throwing shit at the wall. None of it is going to stick. I decline to follow you off the important, definitive point.

➽ so before you start doing more math based on assumptions and presumption how do you determine "r"?

I have just shown you how the existence of "r" is determined. RTFS!

Somehow, you are missing this definitive point.
Quote from: 17 12:46
if earth is a ball 24,900 miles in circumference, and if those things are as far/ and as big as you say. Then yes your trig works. I'm asking you to verify those things. Because "if bob has 3 apples..." isn't the same as "bob has 3 apples".
Quote from: 17 12:47
im qualifying my claim that refutes your supposed curvature.
Quote from: 17 12:47
Not throwing shit at the wall.

Quote from: 17 12:57
RTFS!

Definitive point:

On a flat earth, at the exact same time, the sun's declination will be 90° in Santa Barbara and 89.99832672° in Surf City.

On a globe earth, at the exact same time, the sun's declination will be 90° in Santa Barbara and 50.6° in Surf City.

No measurement is required. In Surf City, the sun is directly overhead, or it is not.
Quote from: 17 13:05
When you claim "perspective" I am going to ✂...

Demand you show me the math.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 17, 2022, 01:46:07 PM
Quote from: 17 13:28
well i happen to live in NC. At 4o click my time it will be noon in cali. I'll take a picture of the sun and show you it will be at about 50⁰in the sky to me. You're assumed distance to the sun is why you're getting your discrepancy. Because there's no evidence the sun is 93,000,000 miles away.
Quote from: 17 14:45
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
A claim without proof may be refuted without proof.
There's no evidence the sun is NOT 93,000,000 miles away.

At least there is no evidence that has been provided by you.
No matter.
You are refusing to focus on my issue of how angles prove GE.
Again, no matter.

That leaves you with "perspective" to explain angles. Now...

I DEMAND YOU SHOW ME THE MATH!

The angle in Santa Barbara is 90°
The angle in Surf City is 50.6°
The ground truth is 2716 miles.
The sun's elevation - distance is X? miles.
If your answer matches mine, I will go to the next examining step.

Do you need a point to what formula to use?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 17, 2022, 06:40:38 PM
Quote from: 17 14:48
i don't think you understand. Your claiming the sun is 93,000,000 miles away with no evidence. Here's my evidence...
Quote from: 17 14:50
here from where i am in nc counting the degrees, we see 15, 30,45, and right about 50⁰when the sun is 90 over cali.
Quote from: 17 14:52
so your saying outside of assumed distances for assumed calculations, you have no evidence?
Quote from: 17 14:54
looking south, at 90, i see the sun is down to not quite 45⁰ id say is about 50⁰.
Quote from: 17 14:56
i could make up any math equation using assumed distances. That doesn't constitute evidence.
Quote from: 17 19:36
<Sigh...> You have every thing required for you to tell me the elevation - distance of the sun above a flat earth.

I DEMAND YOU SHOW ME THE MATH!

The angle in Santa Barbara is 90°
The angle in Surf City is 50.6°
The ground truth is 2716 miles.
What is the sun's elevation - distance?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 17, 2022, 07:21:21 PM
Quote from: 17 19:45
If you go back to our conversation i told you idon't make any positive claims that i can't support. Best estimates put it between 3000-5000 miles. But i will say you need a lot more than some trig equations to put an absolute hight on where the sun renders, and i told you we can get into that later still. I'm asking for solid evidence for these globe claims. I still don't understand where you get r from. And where you get these distances from.
Quote from: 17 23:52
➽ Best estimates put it between 3000-5000 miles.

I'm not asking for best estimates. I am asking for mathematical calculations. GIGO is a term in computing. Garbage In Garbage Out. What is the best measurement elevation of the sun over a FE ? The figures to be used:

The angle in Santa Barbara is 90°
The angle in Surf City is 50.6°
The ground truth is 2716 miles.
What is the sun's elevation - distance?

I DEMAND YOU SHOW ME THE MATH!
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 18, 2022, 10:34:12 AM
Quote from: 18 7:31
you don't demand anything from me, first of all. I told you there's questions i have about your model and that i don't make claims with no evidence. Now, the bullshit number you propose is based on several fallacies that I'm asking you to clarify. Going to Wikipedia for their "r" for radius and their presumed distances is an appeal to authority fallacy. The first thing i stated was i want the fundamentals. According to your calculations there's supposed to be curvature of the earth. When we actually measure geometrically(to measure the earth) we don't see your proported 8"per mile squared. So all those equations you did don't describe observed reality.
Quote from: 18 7:34
Do you think the sun is a physical thing?
Quote from: 18 8:12
3,306.5 miles high. Too high for either of us to actually measure. So i would like to stick with things that are verifiable. Looking at the ceiling does not tell you the shape of the floor.
Quote from: 18 9:16
this is from wiki. Seems like they still go based on erestothenes estimates and guess work. But never the less the radius they propose still doesn't match what we observe. Could it be because erestothenes never witnessed parallel light rays from the sun, which is where our conversation was at before you detoured into assumptive mathematics.
Quote from: 18 14:03
upon further review i find that the tropic of cancer is at 23.4⁰north, while Santa Barbra is at 34.4⁰north. That said you will never get the sun at 90⁰over santa barbra. So not only have you assumed the radius and the distances but you're also assuming the degrees of angles. I feel you're being disingenuous in our conversation.
Quote from: 19 10:36
➽ Too high for either of us to actually measure.

That is not correct. Such measuring is done with trigonometry. And it is NOT just you or I with an interest in measuring such things.

➽ 3,306.5 miles high.

This concurs with my result on a flat earth.

Now I will examine the "perspective" claim of FE.
Earlier I told you I'm not interested in the perspective theory for apparent elevation.

I am now going to engage the theory via the trig math.
In running these numbers, the math basically supports the "plausible" claim of a flat earth.
This does NOT prove a flat earth.

I'm handing you a Sorry chip. Ⓢ

Apparent Elevation = Ground Truth * tangent (50.6°)
Apparent Elevation 3,306.51 = 2716 * 1.2174199245579775791481703519979

Working the problem in reverse shows the differences because of rounding.
ArcTangent (Elevation / Ground Truth) = angle.
ArcTangent (1.2174153166421207658321060382916) = angle.
ArcTangent (Elevation / Ground Truth) = 50.599978623973347305787204622484°

This is close enough to confirm the 50.6° angle.

With the perspective theory, as the baseline doubles, the apparent angle of declination halves.

ArcTangent (3306 / 2 * Ground Truth) = 31.325346542640755203814710186387°
ArcTangent (3306 / 4 * Ground Truth) = 16.92541442526817730978967653951°
ArcTangent (3306 / 8 * Ground Truth) = 8.6514212337380432987587103592594°

I just showed you the math I expected from you to support the perspective theory.
Now gimme back my sorry chip.

As celestial navigating sailors have known for over a thousand years, nothing below 20°.
So I discard the apparent angles less than 20°.
Which means I will need to do the calc's with decreasing ground truth distances.

ArcTangent (3306 / 9083) = 20.00032508386290913198252757956°
ArcTangent (3306 / 2 * Ground Truth) = 31.325346542640755203814710186387°
ArcTangent (3306 / .5 * Ground Truth) = 67.668695575603243959058067598244°
ArcTangent (3306 / .25 * Ground Truth) = 78.393752870033447190350441427844°
ArcTangent (3306 / .125 * Ground Truth) = 84.136730555754599482739892766326°

The line of sight angle from the sighting location to the sun will be the longest distance.
This is the hypotenuse of a right triangle.

These 5 lines show the steps used to determine the LOS distance with the original ground truth and the FE elevation.
LOS distance = ²√(3306² + 9083²)
LOS distance = ²√(3306² + 2716²)
LOS distance = ²√(10,929,636 + 7,376,656)
LOS distance = ²√(18,306,292)
LOS distance = 4,278.58

LOS distance calculated with the FE elevation and the baseline of the FE distance to the directly under the sun location.
(<20°)
21,978.07= ²√(3306² + 21,728²)

(<20°)
11,183.80 = ²√(3306² + 10,864²)

Those two values are discarded because the are less than 20°.
The following six values are not less than 20°.

(20°)
9,665.94 = ²√(3306² + 9083²)

(31.32°)
6,358.95 = ²√(3306² + 5,432²)

(50.6°)
4,278.58 = ²√(3306² + 2716²)

(67.66°)
3,574.04 = ²√(3306² + 1,358²)

(78.39°)
3,306.00 = ²√(3306² + 679²)

(84.13°)
3,323.38 = ²√(3306² + 339.5²)

I am not using the top values of LOS distance because of <20° declination.

The sun's distance changes by a factor of:
9,665.94 / 3,323.38 = 2.908

This means the angular measure of the sun's circle would change from 0.5° at overhead distance to 0.172° at the 20° distance.

If I used the longest <20° distance above, the angular size of the sun would change by a factor of 6. The sun's angular measure would be 0.083°.

Think on that. And please, do not reply until tomorrow. I have things to do today.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 19, 2022, 09:48:22 AM
Quote from: 19 10:43
for your line of sight you're using a horizontal base line right? And that's flat right? And what's what's your dip adjustment? Is the horizon a bent line? How do you correct for dip on a curved/refracted base line.
Quote from: 19 10:44
https://youtu.be/d6YuEErloGs
Quote from: 19 12:12
why the suns angular size usually stays the same throughout the day... There's many videos of the suns size changing as it goes away, it has to be filmed when there's very little to no moisture in the air, though. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yeo_-1h6qUc&feature=youtu.be
Quote from: 19 13:44
You are making it very hard for me to maintain a respectful demeanor with you.

Rob Skiba is totally fucking clueless as to how lenses work. And since you keep putting his dumb shit into this discussion, you are also totally fucking clueless as to how lenses work.

Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 19, 2022, 02:26:20 PM
Quote from: 19 14:07
it bends toward the denser medium. And is magnified. I've provided an experiment that demonstrates what we observe in objective reality you've only given a faulty equation based on a flat plain and straight line angles and the presumption of distances and a made up "r" value. I don't see how you've made any point that's shows evidence of a spherical earth. The "r" you assign has been debunked by the black swan video. Again your model requires a physical geographic/ geometric (meaning to measure the earth) horizon that you have yet to establish how you attain "r".
Quote from: 19 19:17
https://globeterminator.com/the-sextant-1-globe-debunker-flat-earth-proof/
Quote from: 19 19:53
I decline to follow you away from the points I previously posted.

① Admit or deny that celestial navigation has been used for over a thousand years.
② Admit or deny that celestial navigation is based upon the fact that at any given time, any object in the sky is directly over some spot on earth.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 19, 2022, 07:23:09 PM
Quote from: 19 20:47
you envoked the sextant actually. I wanted to stay with measuring the earth. So here we go... i admit we're told in the Rockefeller funded education system that the use of the sextant dates back to when "everyone knew the earth was flat".i can't claim to know it, as knowing means knowing first-hand.
I'll admit that celestial navigation is based on a certain given time an object in the sky is over a particular spot on earth. But i also know that the dip correction is for someone on a ship to compensate for hight above the water and actual horizon, so that you get a flat horizon base-line. You do need two straight lines to make a 90⁰ angle correct? Where do you get your 90⁰from a curved surface? Where evidence of curvature? I don't think you understand how the sextant works.
Quote from: 19 20:58
gets to the point around ~39:30:00
https://youtu.be/re1gQha9hBQ

Quote from: 20 10:37
➽ I don't think you understand how the sextant works.

③ I had a sextant in my hands within the last week. How long has it been since you held a sextant?

RJJ032
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 20, 2022, 11:35:07 AM
Quote from: 20 11:41
great. That figure you're showing is a circle I'm guessing to represent a 3 dimensional sphere on a flat surface. A circle or a cross section of asphere requires a radius. How do you derive your radius? Every manual references a right triangle where the base and the object make 90⁰. This is an assumption of a flat plain labled "x" in this graph. How do you get 90⁰from a tangent when it's based on straight lines, and then curvature is added in after the fact? How do you derive your "r"? Simple question.
Quote from: 20 12:34
➽ How do you derive your "r"?

<sigh...>
Trigonometry.

Your failure to understand this point is my failure to educate you on trigonometry.

➽ Every manual references a right triangle where the base and the object make 90⁰.

Correct. And this part you "seem" to understand.

➽ This is an assumption of a flat plain labled "x" in this graph.

WRONG! The assumption and subsequent errors are yours.

You are assuming that the baseline "must" be a flat surface or on a flat surface.

Tangent
https://search.brave.com/search?q=Tangent

I've edited the image to show you.

θ
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 20, 2022, 01:50:19 PM
Quote from: 20 13:52
the tangent doesn't matter. The black swan refutes your claimed "r"
Quote from: 20 13:54
and just do you know understand you made the 90⁰ from a straight line...
Quote from: 20 14:02
i understand a tangent and a radius make a right angle but you don't have a radius.
Quote from: 20 14:10
again ive refuted your claimed "r". Is there a better argument you can make as to why you beleive your on a spinning ball?
Quote from: 20 13:26
Repeating what I already wrote:
You are making it very hard for me to maintain a respectful demeanor with you.

You don't know what you don't know. That makes you a Dunning - Krugerite.

And you are a Gish Galloper.

I'm numbering this shit to keep track of what I must drag you back to.

➽ I don't think you understand how the sextant works.

③ I had a sextant in my hands within the last week. How long has it been since you held a sextant?

④ Admit or deny: You've never held a sextant.

➽ and just do you know understand you made the 90⁰ from a straight line...

⑤ Admit or deny: You understand trigonometry requires a right triangle to do the math.

➽ i understand a tangent and a radius make a right angle but you don't have a radius.

⑥ Admit or deny: You understand C² = A² + B²

⑦ Admit or deny: You understand C = the hypotenuse. That is, the longest side of a right triangle.

⑧ Admit or deny: You understand C = ²√(A² + B²)

⑨  Admit or deny: You understand either A or B could be a radius.

①⓪ Admit or deny: You understand the attached image depicts measuring on object's angular size.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 20, 2022, 03:33:13 PM
Quote from: 20 15:41
1.I'm only paying things that are pertinent to my claims.
4. Ive never held a sextant. It works in the same primise of a protractor. And I'm proficient with auto cad and old school drafting.
5. A right triangle doesn't have curved lines. "X" or your base.
6. Yes
7. Yes (straight lines make a right triangle)
8. Yes.
9. You've only claimed a radius. You have not given evidence to support your claimed radius.
10. It shows a diagram. Doesn't really show anything pertaining to angular size.
So again and i want a clear answer on this, for me and the viewers, where do you derive your "r" and the distances you've claimed? Just saying trig isn't an answer that's numbers on paper, and doesn't constitute evidence. It would not be sufficient in a court room.
Quote from: 20 16:17
let me spell it in wiki-terms so you can grasp my disposition to your claim.
Quote from: 20 16:21
HORIZONTAL PLANE.
Quote from: 20 16:28
What an i not understanding?
Quote from: 20 18:51
I am trying to tune into what you're thinking and why. I have to keep taking a deep breath and reminding myself I have not seen any malice on your part.

What I do see is a severe communication error.
So with some clear air in my lungs from doing some outside work, I'm going to hit the rewind button.
Terms and definitions must be stipulated so that there is no error as to what, exactly, is meant.

So I am going to start with this image.

This depiction is a slice of the universe. The eyeball looking at the universe only sees in two dimensions. The eyeball only sees what's in the plane of the universe where the universe was sliced. Do you accept?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 21, 2022, 09:31:24 AM
Quote from: 20 18:57
I would agree. And add that on order to verify if something is, in fact, three dimensional, one would have to have to be able to have multiple perspectives or be able to physically touch or inspect. Would you agree? And no harm, no foul.
Quote from: 21 8:34
Yes, I agree that multiple vantage points are required to confirm an object is three dimensional. Out of politeness I answer that question. I will ignore it if it turns into a Gish Gallop distraction.

The eyeball spies a pinpoint of light. It's distance is unknown.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 21, 2022, 04:45:09 PM
Quote from: 21 13:28
im following... i just want to add this video for you to watch about the sextant. I didn't know if we were done with that topic already.
https://youtu.be/R9KTjOpXHHk
Quote from: 21 17:44
This image depicts the eyeball's line of sight to the distant pinpoint of light.
003
Quote from: 21 18:53
The eyeball is in a circular motion orbit on a ninety degree intersecting plane.
The eyeball is depicted in the two locations where it crosses the universe bifurcating plane.
004
Quote from: 22 10:02
I must have posted too soon. I've missed a few of your posts because... Well FB is FB. Methinks you missed my 21 18:53 post.
Quote from: 23 11:04
Did you get Zucked or did I get ghosted?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 23, 2022, 11:24:51 AM
Quote from: 23 11:17
no I'm here, what part might i have missed? Mine aren't time stamped
Quote from: 23 11:24
I'm on a desktop. When I mouse over the time link, just to the right and on the same line as the Like, Reply, & Share links, a date-time popup shows up. That link is also the 'perma-link to the individual post.
Here's the link to my 21 18:53 post:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/284517977025750/posts/471843484959864/?comment_id=471847798292766&reply_comment_id=489507119860167&__cft__[0]=AZVTlGd6b0Ir_d3DYemTJ1340vLIn_UHqbLkxpVeOEpF9djXZwD34d3zSlK1_aCZFsLFb51cxAXVAeLv9MoMghNJ229IOYAuW-zrBxsouHB0AIMNOKdbWcPu_csV0kPP-NIjS3Nq2xmqRjvi2WR5mdI9&__tn__=R]-R
Anything to the right of "&__cft__" is not part of the link and my guess is that part is how FB tracks what you click on.
This shortened link will take you to the same post:
https://www.facebook.com/.../posts/471843484959864/...
Quote from: 23 11:29
i don't see it. Do you want to copy paste or just continue on the two arrows observing the universe?
Quote from: 23 11:35
Two arrows showing observation points and one showing what's being observed?
Quote from: 23 11:35
yes, what's this about?
Quote from: 23 12:23
➽ yes, what's this about?

It's about me being a pedantic asshole.

Communication errors are annoying me. I'm attempting to nail EVERYthing down so there is no confusion.

Since the eyeball is viewing the distant object from two different positions, the eyeball has two different lines of sight.
This creates two lines that form one vertex of a triangle to be studied.
006
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 23, 2022, 11:44:17 AM
Quote from: 23 12:32
ok my phone has to lenses in it and it computes it into a single image. The brain does the same thing. I'm not trying to be an ass but what does this have to do with the measure of the earth?
Quote from: 23 12:42
I am saving your words of this discussion to an archive. So even though I do not directly respond to your words, I've saved them for to (maybe?) respond later.

This has to do with data collection and data calculation.

"You must learn to crawl before you can learn to walk. You must learn to walk before you can learn to run." Coach Nelson.

Though you've not told me you've "got it" so far, I will hit the next check box. ✅

Be sure to stop me if I lose you.

The line between the two positions forms a third side of a triangle and two more vertices.
007
Quote from: 14 11:35
Next point, not until you acknowledge the present point.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 24, 2022, 11:00:45 AM
Quote from: 24 11:38
you're saying each eye of the observer has a different perspective?
Quote from: 24 12:00
No.

You just frustrated me. I have been laying this out one step at a time. Here's what I previously wrote:

This image depicts the eyeball's line of sight to the distant pinpoint of light.
003

The eyeball is in a circular motion orbit on a ninety degree intersecting plane.
The eyeball is depicted in the two locations where it crosses the universe bifurcating plane.
004

Since the eyeball is viewing the distant object from two different positions, the eyeball has two different lines of sight.
This creates two lines that form one vertex of a triangle to be studied.
006

#'s are indexing labels of the images I created to go with the text so that I can keep track. I did not use 005.

Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 24, 2022, 03:01:08 PM
Quote from: 24 14:10
i don't understand what you're saying about the eyeball in a circular motion orbit on a ninty degree intersecting plane. Are there two eyeballs or is that representing one vantage point and then another higher vantage point?
Quote
One vantage point and then another. When the eyeball crosses the plane the distance pinpoint of light is on.

This image is meant to depict the 90° degree intersecting plane and the path of the eyeball both on and off the universe bifurcating plane.
0004b

Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 24, 2022, 03:41:58 PM
Quote from: 24 16:04
ok i think i follow
Quote from: 24 16:41
Bifurcating the vertex at the distant pinpoint of light splits the vertex into two equal angles.
Bifurcating the vertex at the distant pinpoint of light also bifurcates the third side into two equal lengths and creates two right triangles so trigonometry can be applied.
008
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 24, 2022, 05:46:06 PM
Quote from: 24 18:36
ok im with you
Quote from: 24 18:44
This image depicts the measured angle to the pinpoint of light in the distance.
The other angle at the black-blue line will be the negative of the black-green angle.
009
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 24, 2022, 06:16:59 PM
Quote from: 24 19:07
i follow
Quote from: 24 19:15
With the distance between vertex a and vertex b not being known, the distance from vertex n to vertex c can only be determined to be 27,328,881.6 times the distance between vertex a and vertex n.

Determining the a - n distance is required.
0010
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 24, 2022, 08:50:03 PM
Quote from: 24 19:23
The graphic is for demonstration purposes, not necessarily to scale?
Quote from: 24 20:49
Correct. There is 100 pixels vertical between the two viewpoints. To scale would need 27,328,881.6 X 100 = 27,328,881,600 pixels horizontal to be shown to scale.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 24, 2022, 09:57:05 PM
Quote from: 24 22:35
im with you
Quote from: 25 12:51
Another pinpoint of light is spotted in the distance.

Its distance is unknown, but it can be determined in relationship to line a-b, which is, at this point in time and discussion, an unknown distance.
0011

I am now making the images and checking my math as I go.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 25, 2022, 12:49:11 PM
Quote from: 25 12:53
i follow

Quote from: 25 13:48
This is done by extending line a-b to make line ra - b.
And by creating line d-ra to make a two triangles with hypotenuses d-a and d-b.

Since line a-b length is unknown. Its value will = "X".
Likewise, line ra-b is unknown. Its value will = "Y".
This means line ra-a will = X - Y.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 25, 2022, 01:34:31 PM
Quote from: 25 13:57
ok im following
Quote from: 25 14:01
quick question, this is a demonstration as to how we measure the earth, right?
Quote from: 25 14:33
This is how astronomers measure things in the universe.

This is also me making sure you understand the math as I understand the math.

I am also teaching myself how to use trig beyond the little bit I was formally taught, by using the algebra I was taught to build upon what I do know.

This is why I am literally having to figure out the math as I go. I'm a Boomer and this stuff is 45 years ago.

Since I can create images to match, what better way to present a topic.

From my time as an electronic scale technician, no numbers are more important than bad-incorrect numbers.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 25, 2022, 01:54:33 PM
Quote from: 25 14:40
ok i was just asking because your two points are on a flat base-line. I didn't know if you figured in the curvature or not.
Quote from: 25 14:54
I'm nailing down the trig first.

Then I intend to revisit the points previously addressed.

Points that for now, I'm going to label error producing realities.

Right now, I have only addressed a source point viewing location.
Quote from: 25 14:56
i thought that's two source points for viewing location right.
Quote from: 25 14:59
Correct. And two pinpoint light sources to be viewed.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 25, 2022, 02:29:35 PM
Quote from: 25 15:04
Dale Eastman were going to end up going through all this math to end back up at my original point. How do you derive your "r". And if your "r" is the radius of our earth then I'm going to ask how come we can see things that should be obscured by geometric physical horizon due to curvature. And then you're going to say "refraction". And I'm going to send you this clip to show you what refraction does. And you're not going to show me refraction bending things around assumed curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxorrD7dD8MPtWEoCtlbt45-mIPXkwwhAJ
Quote from: 25 15:10
Every angular elevation angle measurement method is based on a 90⁰ angle at sea level(dip correction) or using an artificial horizon using a liquid(oil/quick silver)
Quote from: 25 15:25
You are Gish Galloping.

I am not going to allow that.

Focus YOUR eyes on the trig.
Quote from: 25 15:35
im following your trig. And I'm pointing out that it's based on straight lines and a presumption. After all you did say "no numbers are more important than bad-incorect numbers." I'm following, tho.
Quote from: 25 16:38
Copy the exact words of this presumption you claim I have made (am making) since noon on the 23rd.

I will remind you that I am copy pasting this discussion into an archive. There are claims you have made that I intend to examine.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 25, 2022, 04:44:21 PM
Quote from: 25 17:05
ok i want to get through this trig.
Quote from: 25 18:01
Here is all the math for the Vertex d triangles.

Please note that the lengths of Lines:

d-ra;
d-a;
d-b;
ra-a;
ra-b

can all calculated from the length of a-b by replacing X with that value.

The length of a-b is not known at this time.
0014
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 25, 2022, 07:33:14 PM
Quote from: 25 18:24
ok.
Quote from: 26 11:10
This image is a merge, or more correctly labeled, a "stitch" of two images.

Note that the two viewpoints labeled vertex a and vertex b create the line a-b. The unknown value of line a-b is algebraically represented as value X.

Based on your Gleason's map claims, you are claiming the flat earth is round and has a center point. So that is an assumption I am making about the FE and FE theory. Please correct me if this assumption is wrong.

Let us assume that line a-b bifurcates a flat earth as depicted in the bottom left corner. This is for the purpose of what Einstein and others call a "Thought Experiment".

The vertex c pinpoint of light is Polaris. It's 90⁰ directly overhead point on the flat earth is somewhere in the center of this flat earth.

(If the fact that Polaris, the north star, shown on the right, confuses you, I suggest you do whatever thinking you need to do to calibrate your perception.)

To see the angles as depicted with the green and blue lines of sight,
"89.99999790347148662379600249677°"
"-89.99999790347148662379600249677°"
one would need to stand on opposite edges of this big flat disk.

(I am hoping and assuming that I don't have to ask for a direct acknowledgement of this self-evident fact from you.)

To make sure of no errors, I again acknowledge the length of line a-b is unknown.

I remind line n-c length is 27,328,881.6 times line a-n length.

If everything to the right in this image is "north" and "above" the plain of the flat earth, then how the heck can the distant pinpoint of light at vertex d even be seen from the human inhabited side of a flat earth ?

It can't.
0017
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 26, 2022, 11:59:41 AM
Quote from: 26 11:25
im not at all saying that two points in the sky must be visible at the same time. The link to the video demonstrated that as you get farther from the north passing the equator the north star dips below the horizon due to perspective (as an object get farther away, it apears closer to the horizon until it goes beyond the line of sight. This was a snapshot from the video i linked earlier. You did watch the video correct? This phenomenon isnt exclusive to a geometric ball.
Quote from: 26 11:45
the meat and potatoes of the point I'm making starts around 3:30 in the video.
Quote from: 26 12:59
You are Gish Galloping again.
I decline to engage with your attempted distraction.
I am trying to be polite AND factual.

I'm also giving you the benefit of doubt and changing:
D⁶ - Dishonest attempts to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail
in your case to:
D⁵ - Attempts to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail.

I am choosing and placing my words no differently than choosing and placing my feet walking up an icy hill in the winter.

Having done so, I simply can not let your error stand.

Your failure to address these words can not stand:
If everything to the right in this image is "north" and "above" the plain of the flat earth, then how the heck can the distant pinpoint of light at vertex d even be seen from the human inhabited side of a flat earth ?

It can't.

So I will draw another picture and carefully choose and place some more words.

How can you see what's on the other side of a flat earth?
YOU CAN'T!

Your 11:35 hand drawn image contains an errant claim. I will attend to that in due time. I view your error as a form of question, because I see what you are trying to get at.

Your 11:26 image tells me you are definitely missing some (presently) unknown point.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 26, 2022, 12:13:33 PM
Quote from: 26 13:04
you want me to position another star on the map? And you are still using straight baselines...
Quote from: 26 13:12
➽ you want me to position another star on the map? And you are still using straight baselines...

No.

I would really like for you to understand the point I'm making.

Nobody on a flat earth can see what is on the other side of a flat earth.

Here is another depiction of that very point.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 26, 2022, 12:24:55 PM
Quote from: 26 13:13
you mean like under the ground we walk on?
Quote from: 26 13:14
Idon't beleive that's a claim i or any flat earth researcher has made... that would be a strawman. If that's what you're claiming is a claim we make.
Quote from: 26 13:15
you can't choose to ignore the videos and elements i place to substantiate my arguments. Did you watch the video i reposted? Noted around the 3:30 mark.

Quote from: 26 13:24
➽ you mean like under the ground we walk on?

Really? I just drew two pictures explaining exactly what I mean.

➽ Idon't beleive that's a claim i or any flat earth researcher has made...

Please post the exact, specific words of claim you are denying.

I have no clue as to what you are denying.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 26, 2022, 12:50:17 PM
Quote from: 26 13:28
im really trying to understand what you're saying. There's two points we're looking to, we'll say one point is polaris and the other point we can say is one of the stars that form orions belt. Are you saying we should not be able to see two points in the sky at the same time? Or if we're standing on the equator and we can see orions belt but not polaris? And could i have the answer to if you've watch the video i posted?
Quote from: 25 13:43
Orion's Belt is still north of the flat earth, thus viewable, depending on season.
0020
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 26, 2022, 01:05:32 PM
Quote from: 26 13:47
orions is around the ecliptic, and can be seen from north and south of the equator. So i guess you're more or less asking why we wouldn't be able to see both polaris and crux at the same time? Is that accurate?
Quote from: 26 14:05
That is close enough for now.

What you have not addressed is stuff that is absolutely unseeable on the other side of a flat earth. Are you going to claim no universe exists on the other side of the plane of a flat earth?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 26, 2022, 01:26:23 PM
Quote from: 26 14:13
are you mixing cosmologies? Meaning are you interpreting the fe model presented by the fe society as a "disk in space", or are you using the model of a basin with Antarctica as the shoreline incompassing the known world. Earlier i explained (at least i thought i did, maybe we didn't get this far, but; the deepest hole ever dug was in russia the "bore hole" at almost 8 miles deep. How could anyone know what's any deeper under the surface of the earth than that? For your answer i am referring you to the video(again). Did you watch the video the main point starting at around 3:30?
Quote from: 26 14:45
You have just done a very specific Gish Gallop.
How deep that hole is, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the question presented.

Here's that image again.

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW THICK THE BLACK EDGE IS in regard to not seeing the other half of the universe.

Are you claiming the universe does not exist on the other side of the plane of a flat earth?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 26, 2022, 03:12:39 PM
Quote from: 26 14:32
is this what you believe we think the fe is?
Quote from: 26 14:33
did you Google flat earth and use that as your basis for what flat earthers think the flat earth is?
Quote from: 26 14:39
I may gish gallop sometimes(even tho they're on point arguments) if this is the model you're ascribing to me that's astrawman.
Quote from: 26 14:42
i would rather you think of it like a flooded basin. The Antarctic basin, with islands (continents).
Quote from: 26 14:43
Now back to your point how do you get a right angle?
Quote from: 26 16:12
➽ is this what you believe we think the fe is?

Flat means a two dimensional plane. No depth or infinite depth. It was you posting of Gleason's map which you claimed the most accurate So a circular two dimensional disk. Bumps of mountains ignored for first pass examination.

➽ I may gish gallop sometimes(even tho they're on point arguments) if this is the model you're ascribing to me that's astrawman.

Uh... NO.

Neither the model image shown in your 14:32 (15:32 since NC is eastern time zone) Nor the model shown in your 15:42 image matters.

Gish Gallop might not be the correct label. Deliberately avoiding and ignoring a very specific point is more factual and descriptive.

➽ i would rather you think of it like a flooded basin. The Antarctic basin, with islands (continents).

This makes no difference in regard to the point you are ignoring. Third inquiry:
Are you claiming the universe does not exist on the other side of the plane of a flat earth?

Whether it is circular with edges as shown in your 15:32 image or a circular depression in an infinite flat plane as shown in you 15:42 image.

➽ Now back to your point how do you get a right angle?

You mean back to YOUR point.

Didn't you previously admit to knowing what a tangent is?

The green line in this image is the tangent.

I'm doing work outside so my replies are likely to lag.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 26, 2022, 05:17:45 PM
Quote from: 26 16:28
1. Flat is a description of level or horizontal. Not a shape.
2. Is that tangent the point of your personal zenith or the point at which the celestial body is at?
Quote from: 26 16:30
Do you see where i have issues with your claim?
Quote from: 26 16:33
I would be about to agree with most of the math if you can qualify and quantify how you get "r".
Quote from: 26 16:42
Unless you assume a flat-plane horizon initially to attain the celestial objects 90⁰ tangent elevation angle, and then go back and account for radius?
Quote from: 26 17:45
https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxWaAr6YE-UAYz3iwO4UnHU50W0nkWhz_g
Quote from: 27 09:34
➽1. Flat is a description of level or horizontal.

This is where communication breaks down. Is not flat also a description of of vertical and perpendicular in the case of a wall?

➽ Flat is [...] Not a shape.

Not by itself. So I will agree. The shape happens when there are limits or edges. Like the flat bottom of a bowl, fry pan, or cake pan. Or the inverse of the cake pan at the edge of the flat top surface of the cake, be it a cake out of a square pan or a round pan.

➽ 2. Is that tangent the point of your personal zenith or the point at which the celestial body is at?

Neither. So without ado:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangent

A tangent is how you get a perpendicular 90° off a curved surface.

➽ Do you see where i have issues with your claim?

What I see is a lack of your understanding.
You do not know what you do not know.
You are at least asking questions. Even though you are also looking for anything you can find that supports your belief of a flat earth.

I can not claim you are a Dunning - Krugerite, my term for folks with the D-K cognitive bias.
📖 The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of a task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge. 📖
I can not make the claim because you are interacting and questioning. You are open for new data to upload to your brain.

➽ I would be about to agree with most of the math if you can qualify and quantify how you get "r".

That's not how math works.
"I'm not going to agree with you that 5⁴ = 625 unless you agree that chile sin carne is better than chile con carne.

I admit that you've really put me to the test. The specific test I'm referring to is my ability to figure out your actual questions that you don't know how to ask. This both aggravates the shit out of me and keeps me humble at the same time. <shrug>

The excerpt clip of that British sounding guy...
I only watched 38 seconds of it before I knew he's a bleeding idjit.

Your pen and paper image was good for indicating to me what your question actually is even if you didn't quite ask the question.

I also see it ties into your continuous pushing for info on "r".

You don't seem to realize your question about "r" is a two part question. As in two related but independent questions - challenges. 1. Prove "r" exists. 2. Show how its value is/was determined.

I deliberately left "round" and "r" out of the equation. Pun not intended.

That is why a used a single eyeball on a bifurcating plane of the universe. The reference line for all the angles was line n-c and its perpendicular line ra-b.

I think I understand what you want me to explain, but first, let's finish this old biz:

Are you claiming the universe does not exist on the other side of the plane of a flat earth?
0021
RJJ01
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 27, 2022, 09:08:35 AM
Quote from: 27 09:44
1. Great
2. Tangent is one point on a curved surface.
But triangulation uses flat base lines and a plane the horizontal horizon flat. The British guy shows you that auto cad won't give you an angle for a curved adjacent. You left "r" out because it's never been demonstrated the black swan (picture of the oil riggs) disprove the proposed claim of "r". I don't claim anything about what's under the earth. Many Christians will claim this or that, but the deepest anyone has been is 8 miles. If you're saying the sun goes under the earth, then you didn't understand the sun goes down to the horizon due to perspective. I took this video on my flat table.
Quote from: 27 09:44
your begging the question for the ball when you ask if the universe is in the underside of where we stand. Down is down no matter where you stand.
Quote from: 27 09:44
just want to add one more thing, I'm not here to prove the claim of a flat earth. I'm here to see if the globe holds water. I state that if i make a claim i would have evidence to support any positive claim i make.
Quote from: 27 09:59
These are the tangents used to triangulate position using celestial navigation all the circles of altitude are based on the flat plane.
Quote from: 27 10:21
Sorry for the gallop. I'm just ready to put the sextant to rest as some kind of evidence of a globe.
Quote from: 27 10:28
➽ I'm just ready to put the sextant to rest as some kind of evidence of a globe.

Here's how that translates in my mind:
I've got to get away from this angles thing before you prove a globe.

Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 27, 2022, 09:59:19 AM
Quote from: 27 10:30
lol how do flat base lines and right angles help the notion of a geometric sphere? The sextant is where the globe goes to die. We can keep beating this dead horse though.
Quote from: 27 10:32
can you get an angle from a curved adjacent?
Quote from: 27 11:19
Remember I told you You have to learn to crawl before you can learn to walk, and you have to learn how to walk before you can learn to run.

You keep interrupting me to demand answers.
On more than one occasion I have spent over 8 hours on a single post.

You keep interrupting me to demand answers. Answers you are not ready to understand as evidenced by the unadulterated shit you've been posting.

Do you understand that all the angles depicted in this image are based upon the orientation of line n-c and its perpendicular line ra-b?
0017

Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 27, 2022, 11:26:38 AM
Quote from: 27 12:13
yes i see two straight lines that are perpendicular to each other at that vetex. The lines are adjacent. Go on
Quote from: 27 12:22
Good.
Now if I understand what you are attempting to get at...

I'm going to address: How do those angles appear on a curved surface?

This image is unfinished. It is a step to the depiction for explanation.
0022
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 27, 2022, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: 27 12:24
ok
Quote from: 27 13:11
Line a-b is the tangent line at vertex n.

The intersections of the radius lines and the brown arc (partial circle) are the "Degrees of Latitude".

Please note the Gleason's map you refer to as the most accurate depiction of a flat earth is itself denoted with concentric circles labeled as degrees of latitude.

Note to self: He never addressed the 2 dimensional projection of a 3 dimensional object. He indicated he knows drafting.

0023
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 27, 2022, 02:04:28 PM
Quote from: 27 14:19
ok. I follow, And can i just add, we're not comparing two models(false dichotomy) as we don't live in a model, we are comparing the globe model to reality. But carry on...
Quote from: 27 15:03
Let me (re) assure you, I am cognizant of your issue of, as I just said, "prove a radius" and "prove its length.

➽ we are comparing the globe model to reality.

Nice attempt at your spin. You are hereby called on it.

You must have meant to write:
𝓦𝓮 𝓪𝓻𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓯𝓵𝓪𝓽 𝓶𝓸𝓭𝓮𝓵 𝓽𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓽𝔂.

Now in calling you on that "little" transgression, I wonder are you not aware of your bias as you just presented it, or if are you trying to control the conversation and the narrative?

Without math, it ain't science. Attribute to <shrug> I dunno.

Nothing you have posted has anything to do with math. I even had to supply the math for your "perspective" claim (opinion).
Note to self: Remember to hold his feet to the fire on angular size.

Where was I...

After looking at my next explanatory image...

Transforming flat angles with globe angles.

I have created a half circle with a diameter of the length of line a-b.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 27, 2022, 02:32:52 PM
Quote from: 27 15:11
the globe is the positive claim. Flat is an actual observation of nature. If the math doesn't describe reality its bad math. But continue.
Quote from: 27 15:18
we can see how the flat model stands up. But did i not start out with "i have questions about how you conclude we live on a sphere." And "can we start out with the fundamentals" you're beating around the bush to come back to how you get your "r". Is this math going to show how you derive your "r"?
Quote from: 27 16:40
transforming flat angles with globe angles... diameter of a-b.

Quote from: 27 16:51
In this image, the 45⁰ angles are shown so that you may see where the angle of latitude is measured (center), the corresponding angle where the radius passes the parallel plane of the latitude and the corresponding angle where the radius intersects the 45⁰ tangent at the arc.

The purpose of this image is to set up to show you how the latitude on a globe affects the measure of the angle to a distant object. I will detail this math in my next reply.
0025

Note to self: He has no clue about telescope angle accuracy. And you forgot to address gravity and down.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 27, 2022, 04:51:02 PM
Quote from: 17 16:57
note to self he doesn't realize hes presupposes the distance. And you told me to stay on this topic. Ps that was to stop your strawman attempt. Just stay on this topic we'll get to the lack of evidence for gravity in due time.

Quote from: 27 17:49
➽ he doesn't realize hes presupposes the distance

I dropped that specific presupposition when you rejected what was built upon that value. So I have been building the framework that will give that value at the correct time, by simply plugging a single value into all the equations. Did you not take algebra in high school?

As previously posted:
Please note that the lengths of Lines:
d-ra;
d-a;
d-b;
ra-a;
ra-b;

can all calculated from the length of a-b by replacing X with that value.
The length of a-b is not known at this time.

The unknown distance to Polaris can be calculated using the unknown length of line a-b once that value is known.
<end repeat>

The angle to Polaris is NOT a perfect 90°.

Vertex c = 0.00000419305702675240799500646°
One half of vertex c = 0.00000209652851337620399750323°
45° - 0.00000209652851337620399750323° = 44.99999790347148662379600249677°
90° -  0.00000209652851337620399750323° = 89.99999790347148662379600249677°

0025
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 27, 2022, 06:07:32 PM
Quote from: 27 17:57
what is this flat earth a-b? Are you starwmanning?
Quote from: 27 18:04
what value are you are you plugging in?
Quote from: 27 18:20
What were doing is measuring angles. You do realize that all measurements are done with a base line that has to be straight and level to get the angle of the apparent object, correct? That is why you use either a bubble or artificial horizon, or if you're on a ship using the actual horizon you correct for hight of eye to bring the angle to the face of the water so you can make a 90⁰ angle also called dip correction. So we are agreeing that we are measuring angles with an assumed flat surface, right?
Quote from: 28 0942
➽ Are you starwmanning?

📖 A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. 📖

What false argument are you claiming I am refuting?
What true argument am I replacing?

➽ what is this flat earth a-b?

A comparison to a curved earth line (arc) a-b.

➽ what value are you are you plugging in?

That value is to be determined. Don't be so god damn impatient Grasshopper.

Let me RE-(re) assure you, 𝙄 𝙖𝙢 𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚 𝙤𝙛, 𝙖𝙨 𝙄 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙨𝙖𝙞𝙙, "𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙚 𝙖 𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙪𝙨" 𝙖𝙣𝙙 "𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙚 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙩𝙝.
I do NOT need to prove a length to prove a radius.

➽ So we are agreeing that we are measuring angles with an assumed flat surface, right?

Wrong.

➽ all measurements are done with a base line that has to be straight and level to get the angle of the apparent object

Again, wrong.

You have just told me you still have NO CLUE about measuring angles.

Although in your defense you could be having a problem saying what you are meaning. I base this suspicion on the context of your other sentences.

There is angle of elevation and there is angle of dimension.

➽ That is why you use either a bubble or artificial horizon, or if you're on a ship using the actual horizon you correct for hight of eye to bring the angle to the face of the water so you can make a 90⁰ angle also called dip correction.

You have just presented that you have NO CLUE about how celestial navigation works.

And this makes me think you had no clue what I was writing about when I showed you where the 90° point of Polaris ends up on a flat earth.

This image from that post is a reminder for you.
j026
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 28, 2022, 12:36:03 PM
Quote from: 28 0951
can you make a 90⁰ angle with a curved adjacent? Or by definition is an angle where 2 kinds lines or rays come together at a single point? Auto cad says you can't get an angle from a curved adjacent. How do you make multiple 90⁰angles without assuming a flat base line? Triangulation requires a base line that's horizontal. I don't think you are understanding you can't get horizontal from a sphere. That's why i past this image from a book about how to use a sextant.
Quote from: 28 0951
Flat straight horizontal base line. Correct?
Quote from: 28 1002
I'll accept all the math your providing if you have evidence for "r". If "r" can be falsified then something has to be of correct?
Quote from: 28 1003
horizontal plane.
Quote from: 28 1008
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/RJJ036.png
Quote from: 28 1009
This is evidence for the flat base line that's required for a flat base line
Quote from: 28 1010
How many flat base lines does a sphere have? None. There's no curve. Evidence of a globe would be curvature. Can you quantify a radius that makes any of your equation representative of your claimed geoid?
Quote from: 28 1018
Do you pressume that stars are physical? The sun is physical? A place that you can go to, touch it? Or is it an apparent position, like a rainbow is in an apparent position?
Quote from: 28 1020
I think that's where our problem lies. You think you're measuring tangible things. I don't make that presumption.
Quote from: 28 1043
i posted a video that goes over how the elevation angles coincide with a flat plane with perspective taken into account. So at the very least neither proves one way or the other. However you still haven't given any evidence for r. Looking at lights in the ceiling isn't evidence for the shape of the floor.
Quote from: 28 1103
dip or hight of eye correction. What am i wrong about?
Quote
Screencap
Quote from: 28 1105
clearly you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to the use of a angle measuring device.
Quote from: 28 1204
you cannot make a 90⁰ angle using a curved base line. They take the diameter, witch requires "r". You don't have "r". Long distance photography refute 3959. This is looking worse and worse for your claim that these measurements constitute evidence of geometric curve.
Quote from: 28 1335
I'm taking a break from you. Later I will attempt to sort through all the shit you just threw at the wall in yet another attempt to figure out what you intend as your point.

Clearly there is a communication problem going on here.

That's my assumption and I'm sticking to it so that I don't get pissed at the... Uh... Stuff you've thrown at the wall.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 28, 2022, 06:17:57 PM
Quote from: 28 1337
you've got a lot of assumptions and begging the question fallacies to work out before you comment back. Please take all the time you need.
Quote from: 29 0728
➽ you've got a lot of assumptions and begging the question fallacies to work out before you comment back. Please take all the time you need.

How about you list each and every assumption you claim I have made.
How about you list each and every fallacy you claim I have made.
Please take all the time you need.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 29, 2022, 08:08:08 AM
Quote from: 29 0823
Spent 38 seconds to prove the British guy is a dumb duck (ad hom, didn't refute it/ hand wave dismissal) laser experiments are just one instrument we've used for measuring, plus nikon p900s and p1000s. Your claiming your measurements are from a sphere that you've yet to explain.(that's begging the question) and I've been waiting for days for you explain how your equation is evidence of any natural observation. You attain your distance to the sun by watching other celestial objects cross other celestial bodies and estimate sizes and distances neither of which can be verified. When i said let's start with the basics, it's because lights in the sky (remember we agree that if they are 3 dimensional, we would have to be able to have multiple perspectives and/ or able to touch/ measure) cannot be measured. We do angles of elevation using flat base lines. I don't know how many times i have to say this. We use flat base lines to make a 90⁰angle from the gp of the object, to the observer. That means there's no begging the question its just the observation, and the law of reflection proves that when making the base line over the ocean the base line is indeed flat and level
Quote from: 29 0830
all this assuming they knew the size of the earth based on "erestothenes" experiment, if he or his experiment ever existed.
Quote from: 29 0832
Are these parallel rays? No. Therefore you cannot pressume a distant sun. You could if you had parallel rays but no one has ever seen parallel rays from the sun.
Quote from: 29 0834
In simple terms we see to far.
Quote from: 29 0848
I'll let you watch this physics professor dodge the relevant questions and get emotional about the holes that are poked in the baal model. https://youtu.be/qLQYmve6WHc
Quote from: 29 0853
https://youtu.be/8AGRRfJ_gS0
Quote from: 29 0907
I am NOT going to watch either of those vids right now.

You made an accusation that I have posted fallacies.

I DEMAND YOU LIST THEM.

What is fallacy #1 you claim I made.
Why are you claiming those words of mine are fallacious.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 29, 2022, 08:55:50 AM
Quote from: 29 0933
its called begging the question fallacy. Every graph you've made with a circle and points along it, is begging the question. Since you don't understand that navigation and plotting ground positions is based on flat base lines. You seem to be begging the question that presupposes you're on a curved surface. Everybody that defends the globe hand wave dismisses the actual evidence presented and carries on with theoretical mathematics asserting a sphere without any actual tangible geometric evidence to support your claim. Begging the question of looking at lights in the ceiling is somehow proof of the shape of the floor, like claiming that because billiard balls are spheres, the table must be round instead of actually testing whetherthe table is flat or not. I, on the other hand, am providing photographic, video, and experimental evidence to support my claims and every time i do you do the glober thing and hand wave dismiss it. Why don't you take a day or two to actually critically go through some of the things I've posted. Because trigonometry based on right angles isn't proof of curvature. Doesn't matter how many equations you put together if it doesn't match observed reality.
Quote from: 29 0955
I gave you the like react because you have provided some detail that helps me understand your bias and brain glitch. You are really challenging me to be polite and not treat you as most GE folks do.

I will address your post in a second reply.

𝓓𝓞 𝓝𝓞𝓣 𝓡𝓔𝓟𝓛𝓨 𝓣𝓞 𝓣𝓗𝓘𝓢 𝓟𝓞𝓢𝓣.

I'm going to give you some advice. White space matters. White space makes online text easier to read. What follows below is how I would post your words if they were my words.

White space can be added in a smartphone post. I just don't remember how I've done it on those rare times I use my phone for FecalBook posting. On the desktop holding the [Ctrl] key when hitting the [Enter] key does a line feed (CR:LF)

With all your typographic errors, I assume you are using a phone.

Unimportant side note: I will not load any FecalBook apps. I use "Facebook Container" with Firefox and go to the FB dot com web address.

° ° ° ° ° °

its called begging the question fallacy.

Every graph you've made with a circle and points along it, is begging the question.

Since you don't understand that navigation and plotting ground positions is based on flat base lines. You seem to be begging the question that presupposes you're on a curved surface.

Everybody that defends the globe hand wave dismisses the actual evidence presented and carries on with theoretical mathematics asserting a sphere without any actual tangible geometric evidence to support your claim.

Begging the question of looking at lights in the ceiling is somehow proof of the shape of the floor, like claiming that because billiard balls are spheres, the table must be round instead of actually testing whetherthe table is flat or not.

I, on the other hand, am providing photographic, video, and experimental evidence to support my claims and every time i do you do the glober thing and hand wave dismiss it.

Why don't you take a day or two to actually critically go through some of the things I've posted. Because trigonometry based on right angles isn't proof of curvature.

Doesn't matter how many equations you put together if it doesn't match observed reality.

° ° ° ° ° °
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 29, 2022, 10:03:49 AM
Quote from: 29 1030
not replying just adding one more thing for you to understand celestial navigation.
https://youtu.be/ssb5c8N5m-Y
Quote from: 29 1038
https://youtu.be/ny9-5AXaAl4
Quote from: 29 1103
This is you throwing more shit at the wall to see if you can get any to stick:
Quoting from the link in your 29 1038 post:
All maps are flat. Earth is flat. You can only get elevation angle 📐 from a flat plane, you can not get an elevation angle measurement from a sphere earth.

<sigh...> This does indeed show me what your brain glitch is and what you are obsessing about.

➽ its called begging the question fallacy.

📖In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petitio principii) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. 📖

➽ Every graph you've made with a circle and points along it, is begging the question.

I accuse you of that very same begging the question with every flat earth proof you have posted. That knife cuts both ways.

➽ Since you don't understand that navigation and plotting ground positions is based on flat base lines. You seem to be begging the question that presupposes you're on a curved surface.

Your bias and assumptions have just been put on display.

As is your ignorance. By "ignorance" I specifically mean that which you are deliberately choosing to ignore.

And this is you attempting D⁵ - Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail. You do not want to understand the points I'm making about angles... So I will be forced to break the logic down into even smaller bits. That will be upcoming. As I said, I'm archiving this discussion so I can refer back to things written by both of us.

➽ Everybody that defends the globe hand wave dismisses the actual evidence presented and carries on with theoretical mathematics asserting a sphere without any actual tangible geometric evidence to support your claim.

You are not presenting evidence. You are presenting opinion. The opinion you are presenting is more often not even your own opinion. I have not read you explaining in your own words what you intend to convey.

I spent IIRC 38 seconds listening to your Brit guy prove he is a dumb fuck. That, along with your drawn image, (that I actually saved to my computer) gives me a clue as to where your brain glitch is.

➽ Begging the question of looking at lights in the ceiling is somehow proof of the shape of the floor, like claiming that because billiard balls are spheres, the table must be round instead of actually testing whetherthe table is flat or not.

<shakes head in disbelief at the derp.>

➽ I, on the other hand, am providing photographic, video, and experimental evidence to support my claims and every time i do you do the glober thing and hand wave dismiss it.

Don't call me by your maiden name.

➽ Why don't you take a day or two to actually critically go through some of the things I've posted.

I would write "ditto" but you didn't understand the first time through so I will attempt to break things down to even simpler for you.

➽ Because trigonometry based on right angles isn't proof of curvature.

That claim tells me you have NOT been paying attention.

➽ Doesn't matter how many equations you put together if it doesn't match observed reality.

You are claiming that you don't know how to measure reality. You are claiming that your eyes are more accurate than measuring instruments.

Let me re- RE- (re) assure you, 𝙄 𝙖𝙢 𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚 𝙤𝙛, 𝙖𝙨 𝙄 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙨𝙖𝙞𝙙, "𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙚 𝙖 𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙪𝙨" 𝙖𝙣𝙙 "𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙚 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙩𝙝.
I do NOT need to prove a length to prove a radius.

See attached image.
j001
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 29, 2022, 10:16:47 AM
Quote from: 29 1112
to ignore information makes you ignorant. To refuse information based on how it makes you feel is a logical fallacy in regards to the veracity of the information. I can only lead the horse to the water, i can't make you drink. All maps are based on the equitorial plane. The video from above the 44 gov documents explains this but if you refuse to watch what i present or to question the thinks you were taught you cannot grow. And i don't think it's worth my time to keep going over this ridiculous graphic and claim that you can make a right angle using a curved adjacent witch you can try it in autocad and it will tell you the same thing. So show me evidence that you can have a right triangle using a curved base line. Or spend some time and watch the plethora of evidence in the videos that ive shown, that you can't just search because YouTube algorithms won't feed them to you.
Quote from: 29 1116
➽ All maps are based on the equitorial plane.

In your own words, tell me what an "equitorial plane" is.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 29, 2022, 10:52:03 AM
Quote from: 29 1118
image
Quote from: 29 1118
image
Quote from: 29 1119
image
Quote from: 29 1120
image
Quote from: 29 1121
The angle measurements are done on a flat plane. I don't know how else to explain this to you. You just seem to actually be dunning Krugering just because you've held a sextant doesn't mean you understand the principles.
Quote from: 29 1125
no you need to prove radius to prove radius.
Quote from: 29 1127
angular measurements are done based on a flat equatorial plane.
Quote from: 29 1147
Spent 38 seconds to prove the British guy is a dumb duck (ad hom, didn't refute it/ hand wave dismissal) laser experiments are just one instrument we've used for measuring, plus nikon p900s and p1000s. Your claiming your measurements are from a sphere that you've yet to explain.(that's begging the question) and I've been waiting for days for you explain how your equation is evidence of any natural observation. You attain your distance to the sun by watching other celestial objects cross other celestial bodies and estimate sizes and distances neither of which can be verified. When i said let's start with the basics, it's because lights in the sky (remember we agree that if they are 3 dimensional, we would have to be able to have multiple perspectives and/ or able to touch/ measure) cannot be measured. We do angles of elevation using flat base lines. I don't know how many times i have to say this. We use flat base lines to make a 90⁰angle from the gp of the object, to the observer. That means there's no begging the question its just the observation, and the law of reflection proves that when making the base line over the ocean the base line is indeed flat and level
Quote from: 29 1150
We'll call your equation 'x'. So if 'x' then "r". If not "r" then not 'x'. Show me how 'x' is "r".
Quote from: 29 1209
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Lemme repeat:

➽ All maps are based on the equitorial plane.

In your own words, tell me what an "equitorial plane" is.

<self-censored>
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 29, 2022, 01:22:20 PM
Quote from: 29 1217
is there a problem with pulling definitions and pictures to qualify my understanding of topics rather than typing a novel?
Quote from: 29 1221
and to say im hand wave dismissing your statements is disingenuous, I've given evidence as to why your claim is irronious. You only have an equation using angels of straight lines both from the observer to the object, from the object to its gp, and from that gp to the observer. I'm waiting to see how the angles you obtained were obtained using a curved base line.
Quote from: 29 1306
you haven't said you were wrong about dip correction being to account for highth of eye of the observer, btw.
Quote from: 29 1420
➽ is there a problem with pulling definitions and pictures to qualify my understanding of topics rather than typing a novel?

Yes there is a problem with you copy-pasting instead of writing your own words. Your copy paste DOES NOT PROVE you understand what you are copy pasting.

Lemme repeat:

➽ All maps are based on the equitorial plane.

In your own words, tell me what an "equitorial plane" is.



Quote
➽ We'll call your equation 'x'.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 29, 2022, 03:35:26 PM
Quote from: 29 1545
the equatorial plane is if you were to take the globe and cut it in half at the equator giving you a plain on which to plot angles on, as it cannot be done using the outside of a sphere because you need a flat base line in order to make an angle. Now will you look up what dip correction is so you can admit I'm right about hight of eye correction?
Quote from: 29 1551
Hypotenuse BS.
Quote from: 29 1634
➽ All maps are based on the equitorial plane.

Now please explain how a map based on "the equitorial plane" would be accurate enough for me to use in navigation.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 29, 2022, 06:19:11 PM
Quote from: 29 1759
because the angles match up with the gleasons map, too. There's just discrepancies in the south due to the fact that if you wrap the gleason map over a ball you have to alter the longitude lines in the south and distort the southern continents in order to make Antarctica seem like a continent on the bottom of a ball.
Quote from: 30 0835
You:
➽ All maps are based on the equitorial plane.

Me:
Now please explain how a map based on "the equitorial plane" would be accurate enough for me to use in navigation.

You:
➽ There's just discrepancies in the south
➽ All maps are flat.

Please mark "South" on this map so I know where, exactly, these discrepancies are.
j028
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 30, 2022, 08:32:37 AM
Quote from: 30 0905
the discrepancies come from the globe not the gleason. Because they're not going based on the gleason anymore there's magnetic declination. Because the globe doesn't match reality.
Quote from: 30 0908
this is why capitan cook traveled 60,000 miles or more trying to circumscribe Antarctica. And the Antarctic treaty put in place, what started this while conversation.
Quote from: 30 0913
well if north is the center and there's a circle that's the equator south is the outer latitudes, the longitudinal lines cuffed on the globe, that's why ships sailing in the south have to account for magnetic declination. Meaning they have to correct to the north.
Quote from: 30 0932
➽ the discrepancies come from the globe not the gleason.

Does this mean you are claiming I can use Gleason's map as is to navigate an airship from one place to another on (above) the earth?

➽ there's a circle that's the equator south is the outer latitudes

Why is Gleason's map marked with degrees of latitude?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 30, 2022, 08:48:53 AM
Quote from: 30 0942
what do you think they were using before they fooled everyone with the globe nonsense? Because if your at 30⁰north, that means of you look at polaris it's 30⁰in the sky, if your 60⁰north, it's 60⁰in the sky. Is it hard to imagine the powers that be are hiding things by using the globe model that cuts off areas of the gleason map?
Quote from: 30 0945
For more on that subject
https://youtu.be/YvZ3tMqyjHo
Quote from: 30 1003
I asked you two questions. You have answered neither.

So I will ask them one at a time.

Does this mean you are claiming I can use Gleason's map as is to navigate an airship from one place to another on (above) the earth?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 30, 2022, 10:50:18 AM
Quote from: 30 1004
Yes
Quote from: 30 1005
You didn't watch the video that i placed to support my claim
Quote from: 30 1026
https://youtu.be/A4FxH9wdwzE
Quote from: 30 1032
https://youtu.be/sTOZ651G3TI
Quote from: 30 1205
➽ You didn't watch the video that i placed to support my claim

You didn't try to understand the trigonometry, algebra, and math I posted.

Why is Gleason's map marked with degrees of latitude?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 30, 2022, 12:39:23 PM
Quote from: 30 1214
i already understand it, and it's just a reverse engineering of the gleasons map. Because you get degrees from polaris, and the sun moves at 15⁰per hour, causing noon in each different time zone. It's noon whereever the sun is over.
Quote from: 30 1216
Are you here just to affirm your belief system or are you here to take in new information, and question what you've been taught?
Quote from: 30 1338
➽ Are you here just to affirm your belief system or are you here to take in new information, and question what you've been taught?

That sword cuts both ways. Right back at you.

➽ Because you get degrees from polaris [PERIOD]

Please explain the degrees south of the equator that increase as you go further south.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 30, 2022, 03:15:08 PM
Quote from: 30 1345
It does cut both ways, i used to clown my brother on fe. Until i actually set my biases aside and looked at the evidence. Im one of the fe that tried to substantiate the globe. I was able to change my mind. There's a great video i tried to get you to watch with the 3:30 mark that goes into all this.
Quote from: 30 1605
Me:
Why is Gleason's map marked with degrees of latitude?

You:
➽ Because you get degrees from polaris

Please, using your own words, explain what this image is depicting.
0028
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 30, 2022, 03:18:51 PM
Quote from: 30 1613
The top image is the naturally observed reality. The bottom one shows how it may appear on a ball, using the equatorial plane, but you can't quantify a radius. The radius of 3959 has be falsified many times over.
Quote from: 30 1615
You even said (based on the chicago skyline) you checked the math, and it should not be visible on a sphere with the given dimensions of earth.
Quote from: 30 1616
Goes back to if "r" then "x". If not "x', then not "r".
Quote from: 30 1659
➽ The top image is the naturally observed reality.
7 18:07➽ Second, the gleasons ae map is the map that seems to be most accurate.

Are the degree line's on Gleason's map accurate in that they are equidistant from each other?


Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 30, 2022, 04:30:36 PM
Quote from: 30 1708
Well i live around the 34⁰ north latitude and polaris is at 34⁰ in my northern sky. I'm not sure if they're equidistant or not I've not been to all the latitudes to make that kind of claim. Did you what the video that i marked for you to watch around 3:30? It will shed some light on how perspective effects how we see the sky.
Quote from: 30 1711
Was that a yes or no?

7 18:07➽ Second, the gleasons ae map is the map that seems to be most accurate.

Are the degree line's on Gleason's map accurate in that they are equidistant from each other?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 30, 2022, 04:49:40 PM
Quote from: 30 1714
im not sure if they're equidistant. I've not traveled to all the different latitudes to verify that myself. So i can't make that kind of positive claim.
Quote from: 30 1718
Did you watch that video yet? Or is anything i provid not admissible as evidence?
18
Quote from: 30 1748
Which vid specifically?

Like shitty diapers being thrown at the wall to see what sticks, you have been attempting to overwhelm me with all your posts of the work of others. So I don't know if it's one I've watched or not. And the ones I have watched don't pass muster to get past my bullshit filters.

7 18:07➽ Second, the gleasons ae map is the map that seems to be most accurate.

Yet when I challenge you about the ALLEGED accuracy of the Gleason map, you dodge the challenge.
In your defense, you did actually use the proviso word "seems". However, I'm NOT going to let you slide with that weasel word.

By your inability and/or your refusal to answer the question, you have admitted that you do NOT have Federal rules of evidence #602, personal first hand knowledge as to the accuracy of Gleason's map and the physical reality it purports to represent.

Thus, your "belief" in the accuracy of Gleason's map is now impeached.
So is your reliance on Gleason's map as a tool to prove a flat earth.

You've got one out on this point.
How are you going to prove the accuracy of Gleason's map?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 30, 2022, 05:03:30 PM
Quote from: 30 1753
I'll back any positive claim i make. The globe is the positive claim and bears the burden of proof. But here's the video, let me know if it's not working...
https://www.facebook.com/lomac.../videos/630206361966206/...
Quote from: 30 1758
I'm not here to prove anything. Water at rest gonna it's level. That's an observation, repeatable and verifiable. A map isn't where we live it nearly represents where we live. And i would say based on other things like plane emergency landings add to the preponderance of evidence to support the claim of a horizontal plane. But i stay away from the word "proof", gravity hasn't been "proven"(in taking about the causality not the effect)
Quote from: 31 1100
➽ The globe is the positive claim and bears the burden of proof.

The flat earth is the positive claim and bears the burden of proof.

➽ I'm not here to prove anything.

Really. Then why are all the replies you've been posting all about proving a flat earth?

➽ A map isn't where we live it nearly represents where we live.

Only "nearly" represents?

What, exactly, do you mean by "nearly" represents?

Are the degree line's on Gleason's map accurate or only "nearly" accurate in that they are equidistant from each other?

Gleason Equidistant.png


Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 31, 2022, 10:31:06 AM
Quote from: 31 1102
Because bodies of water at rest lay flat and there's no measurable curvature.
Quote from: 31 1102
"THOMPSON VS GARCIA" "2019-mv-ll04"
Quote from: 31 1103
It's just where the actual evidence points.
Quote from: 31 1128
You posted somebody else's words and alleged work in a meme... again.
The meme referenced:

➽ "THOMPSON VS GARCIA" "2019-mv-ll04"

A search does not return any such case.

YOU DID NOT ADDRESS MY QUESTIONS!

So I am asking them AGAIN.

➽ A map isn't where we live it nearly represents where we live.

Only "nearly" represents?

What, exactly, do you mean by "nearly" represents?

Are the degree line's on Gleason's map accurate or only "nearly" accurate in that they are equidistant from each other?

Gleason Equidistant.png

Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 31, 2022, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: 31 1137
Here's some emergency landing that help substantiate the notion that the gleasons map is a or days on it scientificly and practically correct.
https://youtu.be/KzmjDFv23Ng
Quote from: 31 1152
The pdf is there for the court records.
Quote from: 31 1211
So we know that theoretical mathematics doesn't constitute geometric evidence. Do you have any other solid evidence to support the notion of a globe?
Quote from: 31 1230
You made this claim 7 Oct 18:07 CDT:
➽ Second, the gleasons ae map is the map that seems to be most accurate.

You made this claim 30 Oct 17:58 CDT:
➽ A map isn't where we live it nearly represents where we live.

Are the degree line's on Gleason's map accurate or only "nearly" accurate in that they are equidistant from each other?
Gleason Equidistant
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 31, 2022, 11:58:47 AM
Quote from: 31 1243
They are equidistant, yes. It is accurate because if you could get a birds eye view of the known world, this would be the most accurate representation of land masses and distances without distortion or the need for magnetic declination adjustment. Why are we talking about the gleasons map anyway i thought you had evidence to support the notion of a globe.
Quote from: 31 1258
➽ Why are we talking about the gleasons map anyway

Because you made this claim Oct  30 1214 CDT:
➽ Because you get degrees from polaris,

And because you made this claim Oct 31 1243 CDT:
➽ They are equidistant, yes.

This image proves you are full of shit.
0029
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 31, 2022, 12:14:06 PM
Quote from: 31 1258
Did you watch the video on angular perspective?
Quote from: 31 1308
This image I am again posting, using trigonometry, proves you are full of shit.

I counted pixels and did the trig to insure these angles are accurate as represented.

If you can not understand what is shown, I will continue our conversation. If you refuse to address what this image shows, our discussion is over.
0029
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 31, 2022, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: 31 1310
Watched the video i posted?
Quote from: 31 1311
Your not taking perspective into account nobody sees in 2d like your projecting in that image. It's disingenuous.
Quote from: 31 1354
31 1311 ➽ nobody sees in 2d like your projecting in that image.

So you were posting bullshit when you made this claim:

20 15:41 ➽ I'm proficient with auto cad and old school drafting.

0030
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on October 31, 2022, 01:44:53 PM
Quote from: 31 1356
All the trig and still no evidence of curvature or parallel sun rays 🤔
Quote from: 31 1359
you've made no effort to actually understand what a fe model is/ how it works, and yet can't produce any evidence of the globe you believe you live on.
Quote from: 31 1518
Second warning.

This image I am again posting, using trigonometry, xxxxx xxx xxx xxxx xx xxxx.

I counted pixels and did the trig to insure these angles are accurate as represented.

If you do not understand what is shown, I will continue our conversation. If you refuse to address what this image shows, our discussion is over.
0029
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 01, 2022, 06:51:53 AM
Quote from: 31 1543
because we can only see a certain distance in all directions, perspective creates a "dome"of vision. If you look closely, they're equidistant relative to the dome of vistion. Again if you don't understand perspective, you're gonna have a bad time with this.
Quote from: 31 1543
PAAA.JPG
Quote from: 31 1559
Again, again. The optics of the sky don't determine the shape of the floor. https://youtu.be/Ake2GCl_qWY
Quote from: 31 1608
https://youtu.be/S1G_-qXHCpE
Quote from: 31 1623
https://youtu.be/OIgb1fPoTZs
Quote from: 31 1625
https://youtu.be/1b9j42tFl2M
Quote from: 31 1626
https://youtu.be/FRP7Q7Yuowg
Quote from: 31 1633
https://youtu.be/JdVU79Etb-0
Quote from: 1 0946
You have marked up my image of angles. You have focused as I have demanded. Thank you.

You have also thrown more shitty diapers at the wall. 8 reply posts. Really? You can't order your own thoughts to make a cogent reply? (I do suspect you are interfacing with the net on a phone. Not the best device for serious discussions.)

The only vid I'm going to watch is the one I did watch... Because its title spoke to the issue of math. "How They Fooled The World With Deceptive Calculations"

The calculations are NOT deceptive. The calculations are the mathematical truths of the formulas. So that title is the deception.

Having spent the time watching that video, it does a good job explaining the math proving a globe. And it admits that the FE theory MUST account for what the angles show.

To make the angles prove a flat earth, it has to invoke atmospheric "refraction". The vid then invokes a specific shaped lens. I have attached Screenshot LensBS image to this post because the vid ASSUMES this specific lens shape. While such a shape would do as the vid claims, the vid does not explain how such a shape would happen via air molecules, and how their density would exist to shape such a lens.

24:46
"The refraction they did not tell you about."

The refraction via the lens the vidmaker has not proven, in spite of the claims of laser experiments.

The vid is aware of a difference between actual position and apparent position. I will address this topic in a later post if we get to a later post. The teaser/preview is "air density". This deals with laser measures also.
Quote from: 1 1059
When you get unbanned we can pick up where we left off. I suggest you bookmark this link to my last post.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/284517977025750/posts/471843484959864/?comment_id=471847798292766&reply_comment_id=497927112351501

Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 02, 2022, 08:03:13 AM
Quote from: 2 0713
https://youtu.be/bol8vZ7pcu8
Titled: Flat Earth | Globe Earth Mathematically Debunked
Quote from: 2 0931
i got reinstated. I just want to point out. You said those angles were not possible on a flat surface. That experiment proves that's not true. Can i get you to say we agree on that?
Quote from: 2 1321
➽ You said those angles were not possible on a flat surface.

I just did searches of the discussion for the words "flat" and then "angle".

I did NOT make that claim as you have just presented it. Please quote the words (a partial phrase is best) I used that you are using to make that claim. I will then do another search of the discussion to validate / invalidate the claim.

➽ That experiment proves that's not true. Can i get you to say we agree on that?

I did not say what you claim I said.
What I will say: Under the VERY specific set up with an actual physical "lens", the math works both ways.

I do not, and will not agree with the assumptions made about air lenses.

The time I spent watching Flat Earth | Globe Earth Mathematically Debunked was not a total waste of my time. It shows me one avenue where errant thinking and belief got inside your brain case. (Skull).

Sept 30 14:08 CDT you wrote:
➽ To presume a distant sun you have to presume the atmosphere is acting like a convex lens insted of a concave one also. But what I'm saying is neither one proves anything. But one of them requires two presumptions.

In that same post you also wrote:

➽ The calculations for trigonometric phericty work on a flat plane with a local light source.

You have just made three presumptions yourself. A local light source (a local sun) and an assumption of a very specific atmospheric lens shape. The shape used in the vid. And a very specific location of the lens.

What you and the vid creator have failed to do is identify the causal mechanism to make the air into the very specific lens shape required for the flat earth math to mimic how well the same math works on a globe earth.

Other science, physics, and math supports the creation of atmospheric lenses that are NOT the shape the vid claims and does not do what the vid claims.

And while I am thinking of the incorrect information presented, the sun's rays are NOT parallel. The angle of divergence is 0.00000419305702675240799500646°.

Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 02, 2022, 12:22:34 PM
Quote from: 2 1352
Hm, perhaps i took it as an inference to the inabilityto achieve these shadowson a plane. However now that you see it is possible to achieve these types of angles on a flat surface. We have to start to understand that water on a sphere has to bend to the force of "gravity" yet all our testing shows water at rest lays flat. Now the presumption of a local light sorce comes from observation not speculation. Again neither of us knows what the atmosphere is or isn't, I'm just showing that threw actual experimentation. We can achieve the observable phenomena we see on earth. If we had 3 baskets, one for "works on a globe", one for "works on a plane", and one for "works on both". Nothing we've posted goes in the "only a globe" basket so far. Would you agree?
Quote from: 2 1353
Now the bodies of water find level only goes in the flat basket. Evidenced by the laser experiments and long distance photography. Would you agree?
Quote from: 3 0921
➽ However now that you see it is possible to achieve these types of angles on a flat surface.

Whoa there pardner. I ONLY see those angles ONLY under the VERY SPECIFIC environment set up to test for those angles...

A SPECIFIC shaped lens at a SPECIFIC location above the plane and the sun or light source at a very SPECIFIC location above that. I ONLY admit to what I see, ONLY when the conditions are exactly as the experiment SPECIFICALLY shows.

You and the vid creator have failed to identify the causal mechanism to make the air into the very SPECIFIC lens shape required for the flat earth math to mimic how well the same math works on a globe earth. You and the vid creator have failed to identify the causal mechanism to make the air into the very SPECIFIC lens shape at a the very specific elevation between the ground and the sun. I'm letting you slide on the very SPECIFIC distance to the sun since that is one of the facts in controversy...

Even though the vid creator and his test team failed to show what happens to the angles when the light is moved directly over one of the periphery nails to prove a claim the narrator made.

➽ We have to start to understand that water on a sphere has to bend to the force of "gravity"

Agreed.

➽ yet all our testing shows water at rest lays flat.

I most vehemently DO NOT AGREE with that specific claim of your opinion and belief.

Have you ever flown cross-country in a commercial aircraft? At say 35,000 to 37,000 feet?

➽ Now the presumption of a local light sorce comes from observation not speculation.

I reject the opinion you just spewed.

➽ Again neither of us knows what the atmosphere is or isn't,

I know that the higher the elevation, the less oxygen is available to breathe because the air pressure decreases.

I know I need to purchase an oxygen meter if I'm going to use my infra-red propane heater in my homebuilt recreational camper vehicle. I know that automotive EGR systems are for the purpose of diluting the pre-ignited air/fuel mixture to keep the combustion chamber temps below about 2,500 degrees F so the nitrogen in the air doesn't become a nitrogen oxide air pollutant.

I know carburated vehicles tuned for Chicago (800' above sea level) run poorly and overly rich spewing unburned black exhaust in Denver (5,280' above sea level).

So I do know a little bit about air density.

➽ Now the bodies of water find level only goes in the flat basket.

You are again spewing your opinion as if it is fact. I reject this opinion. Also, we are NOT done discussing this alleged lens in the sky. So you just Gish Galloped again.

What is the causal mechanism that holds camera satellites up so they can photograph earth's ground?

Which is it? Lens or perspective?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 03, 2022, 09:43:42 AM
Quote from: 3 0956
Again anything beyond where we can reach is going to be speculation. Again we don't observe parallel rays so I'll ask for an experiment to explain the divergent rays from a distant light sorce. Air pressure requires a container. You can't have high pressure next to low pressure without achieving equilibrium, much less next to a vaccume. 2nd rule or thermodynamics. Nasa's sataloon program. You know that >95%of your internet is done via under water cables.
Quote from: 3 0953
In a helium tank, there is a pressure gradient, but it still needs a container.
Quote from: 3 1031
https://youtu.be/rPHckG3o6NQ
Quote from: 3 1111
Repeating... You make it very hard for me to respectfully interact with you.

➽ Again anything beyond where we can reach is going to be speculation.

Who is this "we"?

I have reached 35 -37,000 feet in a commercial airliner. Have you? I'm finding you have a bad habit of not answering questions. Have you ever flown in a commercial airliner?

For now I am ignoring test flights of experimental aircraft.

➽ Again we don't observe parallel rays

Who is this "we"?

➽ I'll ask for an experiment to explain the divergent rays from a distant light sorce.

The "experiment" shown in that video is good enough for me. I addressed that video and you have ignored what I addressed.

So here it is again:
You and the vid creator have failed to identify the causal mechanism to make the air into the very SPECIFIC lens shape required for the flat earth math to mimic how well the same math works on a globe earth. You and the vid creator have failed to identify the causal mechanism to make the air into the very SPECIFIC lens shape at a the very SPECIFIC elevation between the ground and the sun. I'm letting you slide on the very SPECIFIC distance to the sun since that is one of the facts in controversy...
Even though the vid creator and his test team failed to show what happens to the angles when the light is moved directly over one of the periphery nails to prove a claim the narrator made.

➽ Air pressure requires a container.

Prove the container you are ASSUMING exists to keep breathable atmoSPHERE on YOUR flat earth so life doesn't get asphyxiated.

➽ You can't have high pressure [...] next to a vaccume.

Tell me all about the container of atmoSPHERE that allows me to breath.

Tell me why that container doesn't keep folks from dying of hypoxia at high altitude.

➽ Nasa's sataloon program. You know that >95%of your internet is done via under water cables.

And yet another refusal on your part to address the topic.
What is the causal mechanism that holds camera satellites up so they can photograph earth's ground?

Internet channels have NOTHING to do with the question asked. What you posted is called a "non sequitur".




Which is it? Lens or perspective?
Solar Eclipse.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 03, 2022, 12:02:31 PM
Quote from: 3 1135
1. I've down from dc to Oregon.
2 If you have evidence of parallel sun rays i would like to see it.
3. Just like me, the video creator doesn't make positive claims in things that are speculation. We can speculate till the cows come home. But this is why many proponents of the fe consider a dome-like object that (biblically speaking) separates the waters above from the waters below. Also i feel that triangulation of the sun would be as difficult as triangulating a rainbow because it appears in an apparent position dependent on the observers position. Again speculation because you can't touch and physically measure the sun.
4. You're asking me to speculate on things that are beyond our reach. I don't have the positive claim, so you prove that gravity is the cause of atmosphere not being pulled into a vaccume, when just the low pressure of my lungs is strong enough to lift air and water through a straw at ground level where gravity is strongest compared to high altitude. But if you want evidence as to why there Must be a container, you just need to understand thermodynamics. The manuals will tell you you need a container to have pressure. Unless you have found an experiment where gravity keeps gasses contained in a vaccume environment, id like to see it. Have you seen the go- fast rocket video where it appears to hit something (something viscous and turns over and you can see the moon over new Zealand(the rocket was shot straight up in new Mexico) you the moon should have been on the other side of the ball; or other nasa rockets that apear to be skimming across an ocean above our heads? Pretty incredible if you haven't seen these i would recommend looking those up.
5. Did you look up nasa's sataloon program? They tell you they have high pressure helium ballons that expand to the size of some football stadiums, and they carry satellite equipment on them. I shouldn't have to spoon feed this to you. If you see i make a claim you should at least do a Google search(i know Google is making it more and more difficult to find good information) but due diligence.
5. Non sequitur is what's know in law as off point arguments. I'm sticking to the most relevant information as it pertains to your questions.
Quote from: 3 1136
Do you agrees with using this three-baskets analogy?
Quote from: 3 1356
➽ 1. I've down from dc to Oregon.

And you never looked out a window...

➽ 3. Just like me, the video creator doesn't make positive claims in things that are speculation.

Concave lens in the sky: SPECULATION.
Perfect distance above earth: SPECULATION.

➽ 4. You're asking me to speculate on things that are beyond our reach.

Dome-like object atmoSPHERE container: SPECULATION.
Your assumption that I don't understand thermodynamics: SPECULATION.
Your assumption that I don't understand pressure gradients: SPECULATION.

What is the maximum vacuum in inches of mercury or negative PSI that a vacuum pump can draw, and why?


Which is it? Lens or perspective?
Solar Eclipse.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 03, 2022, 01:48:45 PM
Quote from: 3 1439
1. Air plane windows have a concave to them.
2. There is a positive claim that gravity holds the water and air from escaping the earth into the vaccume.(globe model)
3. That's newton's 2nd law(my mistake) air needs a container to have pressure. So we do assume there to be something above us based on m newton's 2nd law regarding air pressure. That experiment helps to explain that there is some kind of physical barrier causing our pressurized system while simultaneously giving us the the angles of light we see. They kinda work in conjunction. Can you show any experiment where you have low pressure next to high pressure without a physical barrier? The lowest vaccume we've achieved is 10-12 torr. This is about 3x the hight of your average commercial flight. No curve, no convex window, no fish- eye camera.
Quote from: 3 1446
What is the maximum vacuum in inches of mercury or negative PSI that a vacuum pump can draw, and why?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 03, 2022, 02:08:24 PM
Quote from: 3 1452
Well 10 torr is about 0.19psi. Why is that the lowest we can achieve on earth? And how do we know space is 1x10-17 torr?
Quote from: 3 1508
➽ Why is that the lowest we can achieve on earth?

Tell me about you sucking liquid through a straw.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 03, 2022, 03:09:03 PM
Quote
Well the "vaccume of space"is magnitudes stronger than the weak vaccume i can make with my lungs, yet i can pull air and water up defying gravity yet gravity can fight the incredible vacuum of space to keep the air and water on earth. How do you reconcile this problem?
Quote from: 3 1608
What is atmoSPHERIC pressure and what creates it?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 03, 2022, 03:17:34 PM
Quote from: 3 1611
AIR pressure is the pressure is the weight air molecules press on its container. Without a container you can't have pressure.
Quote from: 3 1616
That was a two part question.

I'll give you a pass on your failure to answer the first part since I did not ask it clearly.

What is THE atmoSPHERIC pressure measurement at sea level?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 03, 2022, 03:22:10 PM
Quote from: 3 1618
28 in/ mercury
Quote from: 3 1621
What, specifically, is a "vacuum"?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 03, 2022, 03:25:50 PM
Quote from: 3 1322
Defined as low pressure
Quote from: 3 1625
What is the difference between low or no pressure and say 14.7 psi?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 03, 2022, 03:42:46 PM
Quote from: 3 1628
That sum it up for you?
Quote from: 3 1630
And people think this thing could withstand the "vaccume of space".
Quote from: 3 1633
➽ That sum it up for you?

Nope.
I'll give you a hint:
Molecules.
Quote from: 3 1634
Molecules per cm³.
Quote from: 3 1635
Is there any experiment where you have high pressure next to low or no pressure without a physical barrier? Or would it equalize?
Quote from: 3 1642
What is the difference between low or no pressure and say 14.7 psi?

You have NOT suitably explained pressure in terms of molecules.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 03, 2022, 04:57:46 PM
Quote from: 3 1647
Fewer molecules pressing on 1 cm³. Space is claimed to have a few as 5 molecules per cm³. But so are you claiming that gravity causes the high pressure system of earth to not be ducked away by the void of space?
Quote from: 3 1649
I want an answer to this question. Do you know it's any experiment where you can have high pressure next to low or no pressure? Please.
Quote from: 3 1350
Without equalization or a physical barrier?
Quote from: 3 1757
You are demanding answers that you are not qualified to understand.

You have not shown me that you understand pressure in a way that will allow you do understand the answers to your question.

And you sure the fuck do not understand gravity.

You have NOT addressed these two points:

The causal mechanism to make the air into the very specific lens shape required for the flat earth math to mimic how well the same math works on a globe earth.

The causal mechanism to make the air do this at the very specific elevation required for the flat earth math to mimic how well the same math works on a globe earth.


Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 03, 2022, 05:11:27 PM
Quote from: 3 1758
Ad homs now?
Quote from: 3 1759
Are you talking newtonian gravity or Einsteinian? And are you talking about gravity as a cause or asc the effect we observe?
Quote from: 3 1804
I told you that those angles could be achieved in a flat surface. I'm not into speculation but i proved it could be done. Now I'm asking you to qualify the positive claims for the globe. Because i told you i have questions as to why you beleive you're on a spinning ball. So can i ask if you can qualify and quantify how you have air pressure next to a torr 17 vaccume with no physical barrier? Any experiment as proof of claim?
Quote from: 3 1851
just to recap, nothing has gone into the "only works on a globe" basket so far.
Quote from: 4 1030
➽ I told you that those angles could be achieved in a flat surface.

For the express purpose of denying that those figures prove a globe earth.

➽ I'm not into speculation but i proved it could be done.

That entire "proof" video: SPECULATION.
Concave lens in the sky: SPECULATION.
Perfect distance above earth: SPECULATION.
Airliner windows distort the horizon because of their shape: SPECULATION.
Gleason's map is accurate: SPECULATION.
Gravity isn't real and measurable: SPECULATION.

➽ Now I'm asking you to qualify the positive claims for the globe.

EVERY post I made about trig calculations was for that purpose.

➽ Because i told you i have questions as to why you beleive you're on a spinning ball.

And I told you: Trigonometry.

What I did not tell you is:
Coriolis Effect;
Counterclockwise motion of the stars around Polaris and clockwise motion around the southern pole center
Zillions of satellite images from circumpolar orbits;
Millions of Dish Network and Directv antennas pointed at fixed locations in the sky for reception;
Not quite so many Hughesnet antennas also pointed at fixed locations in the sky for reception;
Brownian motion;
Ideal Gas Law;
Plasma;
Your smart phone's GPS technology (You get a pass on Loran-C because that would work on a flat earth... If the navigation charts were correct (Non Gleason's maps));
Magnetic lines of force;
My knowledge and experience with PADS equipment;
Cavendish Experiment;
Spectral absorption lines and red-blue shifts;
Proton-neutron molecular weights as understood by present science and depicted on the periodic table of elements;
Covalent bonding (chemistry) that validates the periodic table;
Foucault's Pendulum even though PADS is a better measuring device;
The causal mechanism for the relative motion of the sun and the earth surface;
The causal mechanism for the sun's relative motion with the zodiac astarisms (seasonal parallax);
The reason big telescopes are built on top of mountains;
The mechanics of scaling and motion controls for aiming things needing to be aimed;
The reason the lit face of the moon changes shape during the lunar cycle;
Gravity and its formulas...

What is the causal mechanism that creates the relative motion of the sun and the earth surface?
What is the causal mechanism that creates the sun's relative motion with the zodiac astarisms (seasonal parallax).
What is the causal mechanism that creates the clockwise and counterclockwise appearance of star tracks north and south of the equator?

➽ i ask if you can qualify and quantify how you have air pressure next to a torr 17 vaccume with no physical barrier?

"GRAVITY".

Repeating what you chose to interpret as an ad hominem:
You are demanding answers that you are not qualified to understand.

17 16:57
➽ we'll get to the lack of evidence for gravity in due time.

Must be magic that keeps you from floating into the sky.
Must be magic that will kill you if you jump off a tall building.
Must be magic that would drain the oceans if not for your antarctic ice wall.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 04, 2022, 11:15:03 AM
Quote from: 4 1050
What your calling speculation has actual experimental evidence to back it up.
You must have skipped this video of plugging in globe model numbers into autocad and refuting your globe math. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rPHckG3o6NQ&feature=youtu.be
Your trigonometry only works if you disregard the fact that sun rays have never been observed to be parallel from earth. We can get into coriolis effect, and the stars rotation going clockwise/counterclockwise looking at different directing(they all rise in the east and set in the west) the "zillions" of cgi images from nasa. We can also get into. Redshift has been refuted. Lol faucoults pendulum that works only sometimes(often goes backwards and or doesn't keep in time and many of them use electromagnets to keep them going) the theory of gravity that's never been proven. What is the casual mechanism for the universe... ok so nothing exploded and created everything, then this force called gravity(which needs 95% dark matter/ dark energy that's never been detected by has to be there otherwise gravity doesn't work) causes gas to fall in on itself and create burning balls of gas in a vaccume(cool story) then Lightning strikes creates an amoeba that turns into a fish that climbs on land turns into a monkey then two monkeys have a retarded baby called a human. None of these things have any scientific basis. It's a cool story you believe with no evidence. So far you haven't proven "r". You haven proven that the angles of elevation only work on a globe. You haven't proven what Causes the downward vector. And gravity is presupposed because we're on a ball yet you haven't qualified the ball. So when we say the globe is pseudoscience, you have to come up with arguments that are better than what we were hearing 8 years ago. So, where do you want to take this conversation next? You're saying i can't comprehend these things as an ad hom. Yet ive not seen anything that goes into the "only globe" basket. What topic would you like to go into that only works on a globe that could be considered tangible evidence.
Quote from: 4 1050
Proud of claim about the red shift fallacy.
https://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/expansion.htm
https://www.ospublishers.com/The-Redshift-Blunder-has...
Quote from: 4 1054
I feel you lack the prerequisite information. And if you have looked into the flat earth, you did a piss-poor job of it. I don't appreciate ad homs, and i would usually tell other people to get fucked, but i respect many of the things you post, yet the one government organization you seem to like is nasa.
Quote from: 4 1100
size is earth SPECULATION, size of sun and moon, SPECULATION
Distance to sun and moon and anything else in space, SPECULATION.
Curvature,SPECULATION
Quote from: 5 0645
➽ we'll get to the lack of evidence for gravity in due time.

Must be magic that keeps you from floating into the sky.
Must be magic that will kill you if you jump off a tall building.
Must be magic that would drain the oceans if not for your antarctic ice wall.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 05, 2022, 08:48:40 AM
Quote from: 5 0815
It's electrostatics. And that's something we can test and measure.
Quote from: 5 0948
Must be electrostatics that keeps you from floating into the sky.
Must be electrostatics that will kill you if you jump off a tall building.
Must be electrostatics that would drain the oceans if not for your antarctic ice wall.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 05, 2022, 09:32:52 AM
Quote from: 5 0949
https://youtu.be/kcFnoY0lVTI
Quote from: 5 0949
https://youtu.be/I7YZgocBfHM
Quote from: 5 0950
...
Quote from: 5 1002
Experiment to evidence my claim.
https://youtu.be/i19R5HHpQFQ
Quote from: 5 1031
WOW!

Your science can save the airlines a shitload of fuel expense.
No need for wings to create lift.
No need for wings creating drag.

Have you a name for this new business selling electrostatic devices to aircraft builders?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 05, 2022, 10:41:21 AM
Quote from: 5 1034
They're starting to reveal this technology to the public.
Quote from: 5 1034
Your pompous snarkieness isn't befitting of you. You don't know what you don't know.
Quote from: 5 1034
Are they defying gravity or repelling the earth's measurable negative charge?
Quote from: 5 1140
Neither. They are using electrostatic forces to move air to create action-reaction thrust.
I've seen something like this before. Show me the video where it lifts in a vacuum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSYwaesDQBw
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 05, 2022, 12:41:19 PM
Quote from: 5 1144
Why? We have air pressure on the earth. Just by changing the positive electrostatic potential it repells earth measurable negative charge. I'll wait for an experiment to qualify and quantify gravity. You see those elements on the periodic table. The more dense or heavier the element the more positive electrons it has. And because opposites attract the more positive electrons something has the "heavier" it is.
Quote from: 5 1340
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSYwaesDQBw
https://youtu.be/VSYwaesDQBw?t=288
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 05, 2022, 01:38:51 PM
Quote from: 5 1348
you realize your helping my point?
Quote from: 5 1348
This is why understanding the primer fields is important
Quote from: 5 1438
https://youtu.be/VSYwaesDQBw?t=288
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 05, 2022, 06:36:44 PM
Quote from: 5 1515
so magnets don't work in a vaccume. I've never seen this, but it seems go go against your argument. How would you have a magnetic ball earth in a vaccume?
Quote from: 5 1551
https://youtu.be/01F8V5IhB5k
Quote from: 6 0542
Magnets?
Ionic wind does not work in a vacuum.
https://youtu.be/VSYwaesDQBw?t=288
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 06, 2022, 06:42:20 AM
Quote from: 6 0715
Ions don't flow in a vaccume.
Quote from: 6 0734
i don't beleive there's such a thing as "the vaccume of space" i don't see how this has anything to do with being evidence of a globe. What's the correlation? We have air pressure here in earth. Do you have an experiment that demonstrates high pressure next to low or no pressure without equalization or a physical barrier?
Quote from: 6 0808
➽ so magnets don't work in a vaccume.

Magnets?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 06, 2022, 08:06:17 AM
Quote from: 6 0815
i meant the ionic wind generators. I was mistaken what what going on in that vaccume. The main thing was the ionic lifter(that little triangle that lifts off the surface because the induced a negative charge. And thus repelled the negative charge moving the triangle up. Now because matter has positive charges it creates the downward vector, then density and buoyancy sort everything else out. You've ignored my question for days now. Do you know of any experiment where you can have high pressure next to low or no pressure without it equalizing or without a physical barrier?
Quote from: 6 0829
have you seen the fakery of the space station, so we can go ahead and discredit anything nasa shows us?
https://fb.watch/gDvyUBQLhL/
Quote from: 6 0855
➽ have you seen the fakery of the space station

How is NASA faking the sunlit reflection of ISS?

https://www.issdetector.com/

What is holding it up in the sky?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 06, 2022, 08:17:12 AM
Quote from: 6 0857
How is something the size of a 747 that's on the dark side of earth reflecting sunlight that appears brighter than a star when it should be in the shadow of earth?
Quote from: 6 0857
Do you have a way to verify what nasa tells you it is?
Quote from: 6 0858
i guess we'll go into nasa lies now...
Quote from: 6 0900
https://youtu.be/WAXk7DInAL0
Quote from: 6 0902
https://youtu.be/hp2yWQLhRmU
Quote from: 6 0902
https://youtu.be/uLcc0cGGpBc
Quote from: 6 0910
more space fakery
https://youtu.be/LqzlQPlCv44
Quote from: 6 0916
How is NASA faking the sunlit reflection of ISS?

Lemme simplify that question so you can actually answer instead of tossing more shitty diapers at the wall...

How is NASA faking a sunlit reflection?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 06, 2022, 08:27:52 AM
Quote from: 6 0916
https://youtu.be/hcskz1VgAmw
Quote from: 6 0917
They're faking everything in space. You see a light in the sky. They tell you it's the iss. You can't verify that claim.
Quote from: 6 0926
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CmpGQJzprc

Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 06, 2022, 08:32:40 AM
Quote from: 6 0927
Not a single video I've posted is throwing shit at the wall. Everything I've posted has been in support of my claims. All you've show is a shitty graphic of a trig equation that isnt reflective of what we observe. And you follow it with as homs and non sequiturs. You've been avoiding my question regarding air pressure next to a vaccume without a barrier because you know it's scientificly impossible. Your now just holding on to the ball your masters gave you as a child and it would shatter your illusion if you admit that you've been lied to your whole life. It's like when you found out Santa isn't real. It should be hard to understand you've been lied to at the highest level. I assume you understand they lied about every war, 911, the cervesa bug, why is it hard to comprehend these ppl lied about who we are and where we live. If they're hiding more land/ resources by giving you a prison for your mind, got you to believe you're an insignificant spec of dust living on an insignificant spec of dust in the vast emptiness of a godless universe rather than the center of an intelligently dedigned relm governed by electricity and magnetism. So how many points have gone in the "only works on a globe" basket? Air pressure next to a vaccume doesn't fit anywhere. The auto cad disproved your distances to the sun. The long distance photos refuted the proposed "r"... what am i missing?
Quote from: 6 0930
The iss is claimed to be about the size of a 747. A 747 at cruising altitude is a just a spec in the sky. You think you could see it at double the elevation? How about 250 times the distance? Its a scientific fact that is angular size would be magnitudes to small to see it. But your going to keep fan-girling over nasa cgi.
Quote from: 6 0933
https://youtu.be/nGoJEOaa5jQ
Quote from: 6 0933
More fakery
Quote from: 6 0941
How is NASA faking a sunlit reflection?

How is NASA making this fake reflection be trackable by these apps?
https://www.issdetector.com/
(http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/image/0901/ISS_20081227_074532t.jpg)
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 06, 2022, 09:02:03 AM
Quote from: 6 0944
They know there's a light that crosses the sky. They know when it crossed. They make up a story about what the light is. Then feed you cgi. This isn't hard.
Quote from: 6 0945
The iss shouldn't be reflecting so bright as a star, based on the inverse square law of light.
Quote from: 6 0947
I can sit here and show hours of footage of nasa lying to you. But you're taking their word on what the iss is?
Quote from: 6 0948
how could i go about verifying what it is in seeing?
Quote from: 6 0949
This is going under the appeal to authority fallacy.
Quote from: 6 0951
More fakery.
https://youtu.be/33osdP0QIEk
Quote from: 6 0951
More fakery exposed.
https://youtu.be/86G9AyxF37k
Quote from: 6 1005
How is NASA faking a sunlit reflection?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 06, 2022, 09:08:51 AM
Quote from: 6 1006
Because you don't even know what the iss is. Only what nasa has told you it is.
Quote from: 6 1009
All you can truly say is is a light in the sky. Just like all the other illuminaries in the sky. But nasa told you is a modern marvel that was never built or tested on earth. It was constructed entirely in space, and there's not one video of its construction.
Quote from: 6 1015
➽ They're faking everything in space. You see a light in the sky.

So I am going to ask you AGAIN!
How is NASA faking a sunlit reflection?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 06, 2022, 10:02:37 AM
Quote from: 6 1017
how do you know the sun is lighting the object you're seeing? Again anything beyond where we can reach is SPECULATION. and since you and i can't physically touch and measure it, we can't say wtf it is.
Quote from: 6 1019
If anything is an outfitted aircraft on a set flight path. And they told you some made up story, kinda like the big bang was a made up story by a jesuit priest. Are you out of evidences that your moving to the appeal of authority?
Quote from: 6 1028
How do you know it's not an electric phenomenon reacting to the toroidal feild that makes up the earth? You don't, and neither one of us can use this light in the sky as evidence for anything. What we can do is see all the parlor tricks they claim to be doing on the iss, and when we catch them faking things claimed to be done on the iss we can disregard everything they claim about the iss.
Quote from: 6 1037
➽ anything beyond where we can reach is SPECULATION.

Double standard? Your speculation is okay, nobody else's is?

➽ If anything is an outfitted aircraft on a set flight path.

If it's an aircraft at altitude, doesn't that mean the source of light is reachable?

➽ how do you know the sun is lighting the object you're seeing?
➽ how could i go about verifying what it is in seeing?

Buy or borrow a good telescope and 𝙛𝙪𝙘𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙇𝙊𝙊𝙆!

(https://i.insider.com/5f1f4d3919182453522fa956?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
Quote from: 6 1040
An aircraft wouldn't be out of earth's shadow to cast reflected light from the other side of a ball. My brother has done several telescope observations of it. Have you seen all the fakery they're doing and saying they're on the iss? If they were really on something falling around the earth why would they have to fake it?
Quote from: 6 1052
more fakery from the international fake station.
https://youtu.be/ZX4Hi1sZyVA
Quote from: 6 1054
More fakery of the ifs.
https://youtu.be/k7OdCxGUph8
Quote from: 6 1055
The Chinese faking space.
https://youtu.be/laWvzArUQPQ
Quote from: 6 1106
➽ They're faking everything in space. You see a light in the sky.

How is NASA faking a light in the sky?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 06, 2022, 10:48:19 AM
Quote from: 6 1113
I'll take your silence on this question of air pressure next to vaccume as acquiesce to the fact that there is no evidence you can have vacuum next to a pressure system without equalization or a physical barrier. That's another one that doesn't go in the "globe basket".
Quote from: 6 1117
https://youtu.be/w8x84lPBLKg
Quote from: 6 1120
here since you like the appeal to authority fallacy. Here's 44 government documents that prove flat earth. https://youtu.be/HFGq4UUbhYY
Quote from: 6 1129
x
Quote from: 6 1129
x
Quote from: 6 1147
You made this claim:
➽ They're faking everything in space. You see a light in the sky.

How is NASA faking a light in the sky?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 06, 2022, 11:09:12 AM
Quote from: 6 1154
are you saying it is not possible to fix lights to a 747? Are you aware of the 7d hologram projectors used now? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_XhgfnwVTts
Quote from: 6 1156
Im my opinion they're intent is to use these blue beam projects to take an alien invasion. And the gullible spinny globe space believers are going to fall for it hook, line, sinker. If you don't think it's possible i feel you have a lack of imagination. But then again the only thing that's been to space is your imagination.
Quote from: 6 1108
I'm calling you on your bullshit. This is a capture from your stupid "7D" vid. It was added as a top layer to the live camera feed... After the image was made into ones and zeros.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 06, 2022, 11:18:44 AM
Quote from: 6 1210
There's more like this...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=In4CLX8wZFc
Quote from: 6 1218
➽ how do you know the sun is lighting the object you're seeing?
➽ how could i go about verifying what it is in seeing?

Buy or borrow a good telescope and 𝙛𝙪𝙘𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙇𝙊𝙊𝙆!

➽ I'll take your silence on this
suggestion to Buy or borrow a good telescope and 𝙛𝙪𝙘𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙇𝙊𝙊𝙆! as your refusal to go look.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 06, 2022, 12:22:21 PM
Quote from: 6 1223
Ok, first you're missing my first question. The angular size would be too small for you to see it with the naked eye given its hight and size. Second can you prove that it is that hight and size? This can you prove that it's not a 747 with a projectors. Do you have a photo that's not from nasa or blatant cgi? My brother caught it in his telescope i have not. But I've only ever seen that picture you showed or a cgi, do you have an independent photo of it from your telescope?
Quote from: 7 0757
➽ My brother caught it in his telescope i have not.

Does your brother know you are publicly calling him a liar because he claimed he saw ISS and you didn't?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 07, 2022, 07:15:50 AM
Quote
no i want there he said it looks just like the video i shared. So you have something that's not from nasa or cgi i can see?
Quote from: 7 0808
𝙀𝙥𝙥𝙪𝙧 𝙨𝙞 𝙢𝙪𝙤𝙫𝙚

https://www.businessinsider.com/telescope-video-spacex-crew-dragon-docked-space-station-2020-7
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 07, 2022, 07:26:04 AM
Quote from: 7 0815
Lol space x is nasa any independent photos yhat don't have a vested interest in faking space?
Quote from: 7 0820
And you think that video is real? Lolol plz send more.
Quote from: 7 0821
x
Quote from: 7 0845
➽ What is the casual mechanism for the universe... ok so nothing exploded and created everything, then this force called gravity(which needs 95% dark matter/ dark energy that's never been detected by has to be there otherwise gravity doesn't work) causes gas to fall in on itself and create burning balls of gas in a vaccume(cool story) then Lightning strikes creates an amoeba that turns into a fish that climbs on land turns into a monkey then two monkeys have a retarded baby called a human. None of these things have any scientific basis. It's a cool story you believe with no evidence.

📖 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.📖

None of these things have any scientific basis. It's a cool story you believe with no evidence.

file:///C:/Pictures/Atheism/BuyBull/314-Circular-Reasoning-bible-truth-evidence.jpg
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 07, 2022, 08:10:27 AM
Quote from: 7 0846
Who said i subscribe to the biblical creation story?
Quote from: 7 0848
I get that the Christians would love to prove their book right. But I'm of a scientific nature. Some of the things in the bible are metaphorically correct. I don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Quote from: 7 0910
➽ Who said i subscribe to the biblical creation story?
➽ Do you pressume that stars are physical? The sun is physical?

📖14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,📖
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 07, 2022, 09:54:21 AM
Quote from: 7 0912
Both creation stories are SPECULATION. That's why i go with things that are observable verifiable and repeatable.
Quote from: 7 0914
Who's the religious zeolite, here?
September 4, 2020 - Zeolites are minerals that contain mainly aluminum and silicon compounds. They are used as drying agents, in detergents, and in water and air purifiers.
Quote from: 7 0917
Which baskets have more evidence in them at this point. The "works on both"basket, the "only flat" basket or the empty "only works on a globe" basket?
Quote from: 7 1053
➽ That's why i go with things that are observable verifiable and repeatable.

𝙀𝙥𝙥𝙪𝙧 𝙨𝙞 𝙢𝙪𝙤𝙫𝙚
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 07, 2022, 10:45:46 AM
Quote from: From a different thread 7 0949
(https://synapticsparks.info/images/linkable/Natural%20Law.jpg)
Quote from: 7 0953
Use of the ssn is prima facia evidence that you are a voluntary participant in the congressional democracy and are presumed to be a voluntary surety for their national debt.
Quote from: 7 1105
(https://synapticsparks.info/images/linkable/QuodGratisAsseritur.png)
Quote from: 7 1107
my opinion is backed by evidence. Your opinion is the opinion nasa gave you. If i wanted your opinion, i would have just gone to the nasa web site.
Quote from: 7 1109
No fucking clue as to what you just replied to.
Quote from: 7 1116
this is a quote from hubble, and demonstrate why nasa is a religion in its own right.
Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance. A thinning out would be readily explained in either of two ways. The first is space absorption. If the nebulae were seen through a tenuous haze, they would fade away faster than could be accounted for by distance and red-shifts alone, and the distribution, even if it were uniform, would appear to thin out. The second explanation is a super-system of nebulae, isolated in a larger world, with our own nebula somewhere near the centre. In this case the real distribution would thin out after all the proper corrections had been applied. Both explanations seem plausible, but neither is permitted by the observations. The apparent departures from uniformity in the World Picture are fully compensated by the minimum possible corrections for redshifts on any interpretation. No margin is left for a thinning out. The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs....Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable … Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape."Edwin Hubble
Quote from: 7 1118
"ScIEncE". I want you to stop being played. You see through 9/11, and cv19, i think you can see through the space lie, too.
Quote from: 7 1145
Hey dipshit. Scroll up and look at the original post you replied to.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 07, 2022, 01:01:19 PM
Still fucking clueless as to where he's posting, dipshit posted:
Quote from: 7 1148
show me where i put my opinion without something to qualify it. Then i said if i wanted your opinion i would just go to the nasa website because your belief in the heliocentric model was given to you from someone else with no evidence. This was supposed to be a scientific discussion all you've done is a faulty equation that's based on presumptions you can't prove and have no experimental evidence to support.
Quote from: 7 1153
Nothing has gone into the "only works on a globe" basket. So stop ad homing and make a better argument as to why you're convinced you're on a spinny ball in a space vaccume. Do you have any geometric evidence to support your beleive. The extraordinary claim of the earth requires extraordinary evidence.
Quote from: 7 1357
Hey dipshit. Scroll up and look at the original post you replied to.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 07, 2022, 01:14:48 PM
Back to the original post:
Quote from: 7 1205
The go fast rocket i mentioned earlier shot in Arizona. And the moon that was over New Zealand at the time(timeanddate.com)(should be on the other side of the ball earth) but is visible because it's just fast away over the flat earth.
Quote from: 7 1205
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F6SixmHPCAYI%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3mxfQpkQAGH7fEK_ojkcTlI4sOou1SbGoEjzIZUKy2vDqVYnDWJC0mD30&h=AT0KKK9BhCbsrHppeCs_pAeVDsK8hF-cnyqQo964KlcIlIh7IfFSA4nkn7T81GTjUNhBmzrnVORC9jtCGt6WIGialw_XvnmnnoBaCxfgOcxSGh0KiRaAWirXLDw-cg1DdCnI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SixmHPCAYI
Quote from: 7 1413
Thank you for that link to that excellent vid showing the curved horizon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SixmHPCAYI
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 07, 2022, 01:23:20 PM
Quote
You mean the fraunhofer defraction at the horizon?
And back to the thread I told him to scroll up:
Quote
i thought we were on our topic for a second. However if you want my proof of claim in this case, I'll direct you to Google ashwaner rule 6.
Quote from: 7 1403
its not my opinion, it's the rules they have to operate by.
Quote from: 7 1424
➽ i thought we were on our topic for a second.

You gave my wife your flat earth shit because you don't read so good. It's not like you didn't have a tag of who wrote the comment or post.
Quote
Quote from: 7 1438
➽ 1. Air plane windows have a concave to them.

(https://synapticsparks.info/images/linkable/QuodGratisAsseritur.png)
Quote from: 7 1439
Do you want me to supply evidence for this too or do you want to try your very first goole search?
Quote from: 7 1442
A link to the manufacturer of the windows, to the tech drawings showing the dimensions of the windows, along with a list of the airframes those windows are installed in.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 08, 2022, 06:51:44 AM
Quote from: 7 1501
Here just one on not here to spoon feed you stuff. But i again i don't make a claim i don't have something to back it with.

(https://i1.wp.com/thepointsguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Screen-Shot-2019-01-05-at-3.23.19-PM.png)
Quote from: 7 1504
You best propf is a picture from an airplane window when neil degrasse tyson said that the red bull guy couldn't see curvature from 120,000 ft. Lol when we've refuted "r" at sea Level. Any other evidence you want to put forward for the globe? I'm about done here.
Quote from: 8 1058
➽ when neil degrasse tyson said

Objection. Hearsay.

I will point out that I requested a link to the tech drawings showing the dimensions of the windows on the manufacturer's website. You alleged that you have drafting knowledge so you know exactly what I have requested. You have failed to provide suitable proof.

What you are alleging is proof, is only suitable for a prima facie look-see.

From your linked article:
⚡The outer panes are thicker at approximately 0.4” thick and carry the pressure loads for the life of the window,⚡

So these windows are of a uniform thickness, just like the windows on my car. And the side windows on my car are also curved just like the image from your article shows. And the compound curves of my car's windshield... Oh my gosh, however can I drive with all the distortion of that front glass lens?

Ditto the question, how can pilots fly with all that distortion looking out the cockpit windows?

October 19 13:44 I stated:
you are also totally fucking clueless as to how lenses work.

October 19 14:07 you replied:
➽ it bends toward the denser medium.

Which was correct. Though I doubt you know why.

In the next sentence you claimed:
➽ And is magnified.

Which reaffirmed for me that you have no fucking clue about lenses.

November 3 14:39 you posted:
➽ 3. That's newton's 2nd law(my mistake) air needs a container to have pressure. So we do assume there to be something above us based on m newton's 2nd law regarding air pressure. That experiment helps to explain that there is some kind of physical barrier causing our pressurized system while simultaneously giving us the the angles of light we see.

You have implied there is a dome covering a flat earth.

It's okay to assume for a flat earth, but it's not okay to make assumptions for a globe earth? I'm surprised that you admitted to the double standard.

From your linked article:
⚡As your flying tube gains altitude, the pressure acting on the outside the plane drops — the air is much less dense the higher your plane climbs. Because aircraft cabins are pressurized to about 6,000 feet for passenger comfort (and survival), there is more pressure inside the plane than acting on it from the outside. ⚡

November 3 09:53 you posted:
➽ In a helium tank, there is a pressure gradient, but it still needs a container.

So, you are claiming that a tank with helium at pressure will have two different pressure readings at a top and a bottom pressure reading port?

With these specific words of yours, you have told me you don't know anything about the causality of pressure gradients.

November 3 09:56 you claimed:
➽ Air pressure requires a container.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

November 3 16:11 you posted:
➽ AIR pressure is the pressure is the weight air molecules press on its container.

With these specific words of yours, you have told me you don't know the difference between weight and gas pressure.

November 3 1647 you posted:
➽ Fewer molecules pressing on 1 cm³.

Which indicates to me, you have grasped one small piece of the puzzle that is befuddling you.

You seem to be unaware of the fact that "density" is a part of this puzzle.
As in, what packs more molecules in to a given volume?

I will assume that you understand that an air compressor physically pushes gaseous molecules into a SMALLER volume.
The SMALLER volume is the confined space of the compressor's tank and the vehicle's tires.

You continually reject the OTHER supply of force that physically pushes gaseous molecules into a SMALLER volume.
You are strongly implying the weight of gaseous molecules only works with a tank to push gaseous molecules into a SMALLER volume.

November 4 10:50 you claimed:
➽ the theory of gravity that's never been proven.

The theory of gravity is proven every single time you don't float off the earth.
The acceleration of an object in free fall has been measured and is so consistent that it's math is proven correct.

Your electrostatic claim instead of gravity BS is just that... Bullshit.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Electrostatic forces and gravametric forces have been measured.

November 2 13:52 you claimed:
➽ We have to start to understand that water on a sphere has to bend to the force of "gravity" yet all our testing shows water at rest lays flat.

These specific words tell my you have no fucking clue about scale.

Basket balls are NOT round. This picture proves it.
BasketFlats.jpg
(https://synapticsparks.info/images/linkable/BasketFlats.jpg)







Superman is real. I have proof.



Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 08, 2022, 10:20:53 AM
Quote from: 8 1101
Commercial flights don't even reach this hight. You're going to have to pose some serious evidence something that can go into the"globe only" basket. Do you have one thing that only works on a globe.
Quote from: 8 1102
Where's your "r"
Quote from: 8 1104
The default is you can see over the flat plane but air conditions can bring visibility down to a shorter distance but that's not evidence of a globe. https://m.youtube.com/.../UgkxorrD7dD8MPtWEoCtlbt45...
Quote from: 8 1105
you've shown no evidence thus far.
Quote from: 8 1110
Pilots use a gyroscope which retains rigidity in space. Meaning you won't see a gyro on a plane coming from one location and the gryo flip over because you've gone around a curved surface. The gyro remains flat and level because you fly flat and level in an airplane over the earth plane. The gyro provides the artificial horizon. And it remains flat no matter how far "around the globe"you fly.
Quote from: 8 1113
You say i don't know how certain things work but that's just an ad hom because ive refuted all your main points. My question is how have you not acknowledged that there's since things that you told me to your surprise that I'm right about. Could it be im right and your ego is holding on to your deep rooted belief system and it causes discomfort for you to rationally ang logically examine the things you believe could just be a fairy tale?
Quote from: 8 1114
Here's the fucking scale its your ball math that doesn't fucking match reality.
Quote from: 8 1114
x
Quote from: 8 1117
So we tested that claim with long distant photography, lasers and mirror flashed revealing that the horizon is an optical phenomenon, not physical curvature. I don't know how else to explain. If r then x, IF NOT X, THEN NOT R. HERE IS NOT R. So you can either conform to the scientific method or you can double down and go into what's called pseudoscience. But you can't say that you have scientific proof, when you haven't provided one peice of solid evidence.
Quote from: 8 1127
You haven't answered many questions, which is all I'm here to really do is ask questions about the globe. How you reconcile "r". Evidence of high pressure next to vaccume with no physical barrier? Evidence that refraction can cause a lifted image from beyond a physical horizon stopping the viewed object at the horizon line? How naval ships and submarines can laser pin point a target or sonar a target 100 miles away using line of sight apparatuses? How the long distance record photo sees things that should be obscured by miles of physical curvature? You haven't answered shit. You don't know what a gravitron is because it's theoretical physics aka imaginary. What we have done is experiment on somethings positive/ negative charge and we can cause an object to "defy gravity" just by changing its charge potential. You don't have any experimental evidence to refute any of these real, observable, verifiable, and repeatable scientific experiments.
Quote from: 8 1131
Do you think cv is real? They gave you a cgi of the cervsa bug so it must be real. You think 19 hijackers took down 3 buildings using 2 planes? We saw them come down on the tv so it must be real. Now just apply the logic out. And so when these subjects are now taught in school they are tought as fact, just like gravity was taugh to us. Even hubble said they can't prove it either way, but the notion that we are at the center of creation or a unique position is not something we want people to know.
Quote from: 8 1202
https://youtu.be/EofTl4_OKhc
Quote from: 8 1202
https://youtu.be/5SEf1JjADnw
Quote from: 8 1206
https://youtu.be/G1BCY_r1w4I
Quote from: 8 1213
https://youtu.be/HFGq4UUbhYY
Quote from: 9 0715
➽ Here's the fucking scale its your ball math that doesn't fucking match reality.

Take the marbles out of your mouth so I can understand what you are ATTEMPTING to say with this fuzzy, blurry, unreadable picture that you are implying somehow denies Trigonometric calculations.

Using your own words, articulate EXACTLY how you think this image refutes math.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 09, 2022, 06:45:28 AM
Quote from: 9 0726
I said autocad disproves your trigonometry. That is a picture of how your globe breaks down which makes the picture of chicago impossible on this globe. You agreed. Then, an even more demonstrable evidence was this, called the black swan, because we know the camera was only 1 for of the ground and it shows where the horizon would have to be, according to globe math, yet we have the riggs in clear view at known distances and the horizon is still at eye level because the horizon is an optical phenomena and is due to perspective, not the curvature of a ball. So the default is, we can see things across our flat plane until air conditions bring the visibility down due to moisture, pollution, temperature, etc. This is geometric evidence of a flat plane. And it's why i make the positive claim that,the natural physics of water, bodies of water at rest find and maintain level.
Quote from: 9 0744
Thank you for taking the marbles out of your mouth.
Too bad you didn't bother to understand WHY I agreed with you in regard to seeing Chicago buildings at a distance. To bad you didn't understand that I learned something about celestial navigation because of the discussion with you.

No shooting objects below 20° for celestial navigation.

Which brings me back to my accusation that you do not understand lenses.

Nor do you understand density gradients.

And per your ignoring of the BasketFlats.jpg image, nor did you, nor do you, understand scale as I have used the word.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 09, 2022, 07:20:39 AM
Quote from: 9 0803
Wtf do i not understand about on a ball that's 25,000 miles in circumference, if you're one foot off the ground the horizon must be no more than 1.2 miles from the observer? And when i tell you on a flat plane the horizon is an optical phenomena due to the convergence point of perspective. So if conditions are fair we can see farther than would be possible on a ball. I showed a video that demonstrates what refraction does when observing far distances. If your on that basket ball, once something has gone beyond that physical horizon, you could not then zoom a camera in and see what's gone beyond that physical geographic curve. There is no measurable curve. So you have to be rejecting the scientific method in favor of a belief that the earth is a sphere. Brcause in science when an experiment disproves a hypothesis you throw out that hypothesis and form a new hypothesis to test. We have tested for curvature over great distances using high power optics, lasers, mirror flashes. We got Loran, and Marconi's transatlantic radio communications. Radio waves require line of sight. Things at this distance should be beyond a curve but are not. If r then x, if not x, then not r.
Quote from: 9 0808
I posted the 44 government documents that tell you are their networks and programs are based on a "flat-nonrotating earth". There is a new world record long distance sniper shot. They said the round took 28 seconds to hit its target. When he was asked what the compensation was for coriolis was, he said, "oh we didn't even account for that".
Quote from: 9 0812
7,774 yards or 4.4 miles
Quote from: 9 0831
Your Gish Galloping ends or this discussion ends. Your choice.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 09, 2022, 07:51:31 AM
Quote from: 9 1102 private message
Flat Earth United | Facebook
This post is hidden because Flat Earth United is a private group.
Join Flat Earth United to see posts from this group.
Quote
In a private message:
➽ Flat Earth United | Facebook
This post is hidden because Flat Earth United is a private group.
Join Flat Earth United to see posts from this group.

Never going to happen.

➽ And when i tell you on a flat plane the horizon is an optical phenomena due to the convergence point of perspective.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

➽ There is no measurable curve.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

➽ Radio waves require line of sight.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

So you've never heard of DX'ing.

Did I mention I know a thing or three about radio electronics?

32.05 mhz, Southern Arizona, Maryland medivac frequency. We had to change comm freq in AZ.
630 khz, NYC, southern arizona

(https://www.synapticsparks.info/dresume/scan0048.jpg)
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 09, 2022, 03:09:53 PM
Quote from: 9 1327
That's a weird way of saying you were a tool for the government.
Quote from: 9 1327
and it's not just an opinion when you can't refuted the claim.
Quote from: 9 1614
I told you I'm archiving this discussion as it happens. Makes it very easy to go back and search out phrases posted. Something Fecalbook is not capable of doing.

Too bad you didn't bother to understand WHY I agreed with you in regard to seeing Chicago buildings at a distance. To bad you didn't understand that I learned something about celestial navigation because of the discussion with you.

No shooting objects below 20° for celestial navigation.

Which brings me back to my accusation that you do not understand lenses.

Nor do you understand density gradients.

Back to you.
Quote from: 12 0942
Too bad you didn't bother to understand WHY I agreed with you in regard to seeing Chicago buildings at a distance.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 12, 2022, 08:49:35 AM
Quote from: 12 0946
I know why you have to agree. Because according to globe math you shouldn't see the chicago skyline from 40/50 miles away. And on top of that, the rob skiba video shows that curvature is not required to have the effect of something going beyond the horizon. So geometric evidence of "r" is refuted. Welcome to flat earth.
Quote from: 12 0949
As I wrote:
Too bad you didn't bother to understand WHY I agreed with you in regard to seeing Chicago buildings at a distance.
Quote from: 12 0956
Not sure what that means. Either earth is a ball and they shouldn't be seen, or earth is flat and you Can see that far if atmos conditions permit. No opinion required. I'm waiting to hear why you agree, beyond what I've outlined.
Quote from: 12 1001
It means EXACTLY what I wrote. I am unhappy that you STILL have no clue as to why I agreed with you that I should NOT be able to see the tower from Kenosha.

You do NOT understand atmospheric lensing.
Quote from: 12 1004
I've showns several videos that demonstrate lensing. And I've even done the experiment in my own flat table. No curvature is required for this effect. These another video of skunk bay that demonstrates what refraction/ lensing can do.
Quote from: 12 1006
@34 sec
https://youtu.be/edlPGRQvw3g
Quote from: 12 1007
Do you have an experiment that will show an image being projected over/ around a ball bending the water up equally at the way out to a flat horizon at the eye level?
Quote from: 12 1015
You keep spewing multiple posts in response to my single posts.

You have again failed to address my point.

Repeating my claim:
You do NOT understand atmospheric lensing.
Quote from: 12 1020
Both videos show what lensing does. So they are on point arguments. You haven't shown any experimental evidence to support the claim that refraction or lensing dies what you claim it does. So before you keep telling me what i know why don't you show some proof of claim before your next ad hom.
Quote from: 12 1107
You wouldn't know an ad hominem if it bit you in the ass. So for your edification I will now ad hom you.
𝙔𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙤𝙤 𝙛𝙪𝙘𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙨𝙩𝙪𝙥𝙞𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙢 𝙞𝙨.

📖 Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it. 📖

I will engage your claims in MY own way. But first I must convince you to engage regarding your claims without all your Gish Gallop shitty diapers thrown at the wall.

Just so you know, As far as I am concerned, your accusation of me ad homineming you is the same as you accusing me of libeling you.

📖 Defamation of character occurs when a person makes a published false, and harmful statement about someone. ...
There are a number of important defenses in a defamation lawsuit that could either eliminate the plaintiff's claim entirely or weaken it significantly.
Absolute Defenses
First and foremost, truth is an absolute defense to a defamation lawsuit. If the statement that is the subject of the suit is true, and you can prove it, your attorney can move to have the plaintiff's claim dismissed. No one is punished for speaking the truth, even if it is an ugly truth.📖

You have again failed to address my point.

Repeating my claim:
You do NOT understand atmospheric lensing.

Proving the claim beyond a doubt requires interrogating you regarding what you know or think you know.

What causes light to bend?
Quote from: 12 1109
Light bend when it enters a medium of different density.
Quote from: 12 1110
Before we go further, do you have an experiment that qualifies your claim as to what refraction can and cannot do.
Quote from: 12 1113
Why does the light bend when it enters a medium of different density?
Quote from: 12 1117
In particle theory its because the speed the light travels is different in different mediums.
Quote from: 12 1120
What is the difference between different mediums?
Quote from: 12 1122
Water molecules are closer together than air molecules. Do you refuse to adress my question as to any evidence for refraction being able bring thousands of feet of water up over a phere to stop at the viewers eye level because there's no experimental evidence to support this notion?
Quote from: 12 1131
Another Dale claim: You don't know what "eye level" means. Moving on.

You have NOT correctly answered the question.

The correct answer is "Density."
Quote from: 12 1133
I already said density...
Quote from: 12 1133
Do you have an answer to my question or is it just me with the burden answering questions here?
Quote from: 12 1152
In deed... You did say "Density".

And attempting to address that "Density" as you believe atmospheric lensing works, you stated:
➽ Water molecules are closer together than air molecules.

This betrayed your lack of knowledge of lenses.

Your counter claim of the angles proving a not flat earth was a video of a VERY specific shape, Vidcap image of specific shape attached.

From my Nov 3 0921 post:
You and the vid creator have failed to identify the causal mechanism to make the air into the very SPECIFIC lens shape required for the flat earth math to mimic how well the same math works on a globe earth. You and the vid creator have failed to identify the causal mechanism to make the air into the very SPECIFIC lens shape at a the very SPECIFIC elevation between the ground and the sun. I'm letting you slide on the very SPECIFIC distance to the sun since that is one of the facts in controversy...

What is the specific causal mechanism to make the air into the very specific lens shape required for the flat earth math to mimic how well the same math works on a globe earth.

Quote
(https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/images/grin.png)
A graded-index lens is a flat object that focuses light by changing the refractive index of the material as you go from the lens' center to its edge. Public Domain Image, source: Christopher S. Baird.

What is the specific causal mechanism to make the air do this at the very specific elevation required for the flat earth math to mimic how well the same math works on a globe earth.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 12, 2022, 11:54:16 AM
Quote from: 12 1207
You said the angles don't work on a flat plain, i showed you they Could. Again anything above 72 miles is going to be speculation. But because we know air pressure requires a container, it is simple to think whatever the container is and its shape could cause the light rays we see to make the angles we measure. Since you haven't shown how you can have air pressure next to a vaccume without it equalizing or without a physical barrier this just adds credence to the notion of a structure, either physical or energetic, above us. I say this because you refuse to answer the request for evidence for the ability to have air pressure next to vaccume without a barrier or without it equalizing. So how do you have air pressure next to vaccume? And is there an experiment that shows how you can see objects obscured by physical horizon that are bent up to to make a flat plain and the horizon remains at eye level? Those 2 questions i need answers. I've shown the proofs for my claims. I'm still waiting on yours.
Quote from: 12 1218
And i also posted a video showing that the globe math for the sizes and distances to the sun don't work in auto cad. So again nothing has gone into the"only a globe" basket.
Quote from: 12 1220
observing distant rays from the sun coming in parallel...lol
Quote from: 12 1253
➽ You said the angles don't work on a flat plain, i showed you they Could.

ℂ𝕆𝕌𝕃𝔻 does NOT mean 𝕀𝕊. In order for "ℂ𝕆𝕌𝕃𝔻" to be "𝕀𝕊" a VERY SPECIFIC LENS SHAPE IS REQUIRED. Your own video proved this. You have built your alleged disproof of the globe math on this SPECULATION.

➽ But because we know air pressure requires a container,

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

That is YOUR belief.

➽ But because we know air pressure requires a container, it is simple to think whatever the container is and its shape could cause the light rays we see to make the angles we measure.

That would be the container you are SPECULATING exists. You need this alleged container or you can't deny globe earth math.

➽ So how do you have air pressure next to vaccume?

Pressure gradients.

Another Dale claim: You don't know what causes pressure gradients.

➽ the horizon remains at eye level

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Repeat: Dale claim: You don't know what "eye level" means.

Oh... And you're Gish Galloping again.
Quote from: 12 1255
pressure gradient is a word. How do you have air pressure with no container.
Quote from: 12 1256
You need pressure to have pressure gradient. How do you have pressure next to vaccume with no barrier?
Quote from: 12 1307
You seem to be having quite a problem understanding what a pressure gradient is.

Does it help you if instead a call it density layers?
Quote from: 12 1309
Your having a problem answering a simple question as to how you achieve pressure without a physical barrier. And I've asked this at least 10 times now. A helium tank has a pressure gradient. But there is a barrier between the inside(high pressure) and the outside(low pressure) how do you achieve a pressure gradient without a container?
Quote from: 13 1322
And there's the clue I needed to understand what's inside your brain-case.

📖 The meaning of GRADIENT is the rate of regular or graded ascent or descent : inclination.📖

White is high pressure. Black is low pressure.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cpR8ztwAFJo/UrHiV8L7qyI/AAAAAAAADo0/Ls6qgblqt1Q/s200/GSC00-UpperLayerNoDither.jpg)

BTW: Your "Flat Earth Facts" image is just another opinion.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
And another shitty Gish Gallop diaper thrown at the wall.
Quote from: 12 1332
That's a cool picture. I'll ask again but read it slower. How do you achieve air/gas pressure without a barrier. There will be a gradient inside the helium tank. Denser at the bottom than at the top. How do you have any pressure without that physical barrier
Quote from: 12 1344
You are still not comprehending what "gradient" means.

➽ There will be a gradient inside the helium tank. Denser at the bottom than at the top.

What creates this denser at the bottom than at the top "gradient"?

How would this gradient manifest?
Quote from: 12 1349
Well without the container there is no pressure to create a gradient, first of all. But the molecules with the higher positive electrostatic potential will draw closer to the measurably negative charge of the earth. In going to ask one more time because you seem to not understand air/gas pressure. How do achieve air pressure without a physical barrier?
Quote from: 12 1356
So you are claiming all the molecules of helium in the tank have different electostatic charges?

You are still telling me you don't understand what a gradient is.

You are also telling me you don't understand the physics of gaseous matter.
Quote from: 12 1359
you're not answering the fucking question. Idk if you don't understand how air pressure works. Do you have any experiment that demonstrates high pressure next to no pressure without a physical barrier. The test of your argument is moot if you can't answer this fundamental question regarding air pressure.
Quote from: 12 1406
So... You aced your high school physical science and chemistry classes didja?

You are the one CLUELESSLY claiming "high pressure next to no pressure".
I have NOT claimed any such bullshit. That's ALL yours.

Repeat: You don't know what causes pressure gradients.
Quote from: 12 1419
The globe has air pressure, next to the vaccume of space. How do you have air pressure next to a vaccume without a barrier? I could try asking in spanish.
Quote from: 12 1420
If you don't have an answer just say "i don't know how that would be possible".
Quote from: 12 1429
➽ The globe has air pressure, next to the vaccume of space.

You are the one CLUELESSLY claiming "The globe has air pressure, next to the vaccume of space.".
I have NOT claimed any such bullshit. That's ALL yours.

➽ I could try asking in spanish.

Or you could try understanding pressure gradients and density gradients.

Be glad to help you.
Why does gasoline or oil float on water?
Why does ice float on water?
Why does molten glass float on melted tin?

Why does hydrostatic lock fuck up a motor?
Quote from: 12 1438
Why does hydrostatic lock fuck up a motor?
Quote from: 12 1438
That's the globe model. Earth has air pressure 14.7 psi. Space is a vaccume 10-17 tore. No barrier. How is this possible? You do know the earth model right?
Quote from: 12 1440
Your defecting the question for off point arguments.
Quote from: 12 1444
[img]
Quote from: 12 1445
Closed container*
Quote from: 12 1452
➽ Your defecting the question for off point arguments.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I took a page from your playbook.

➽ Earth has air pressure 14.7 psi.

How do you know?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 12, 2022, 02:12:39 PM
Quote from: 12 1500
A barometer.
Quote from: 12 1501
You're still deflecting. Do you have any evidence that you can have air pressure next to a vaccume?
Quote from: 12 1511
➽ You're still deflecting.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I took a page from your playbook.

➽ Do you have any evidence that you can have air pressure next to a vaccume?

You are the one CLUELESSLY claiming "air pressure next to a vaccume?".
I have NOT claimed any such bullshit. That's ALL yours.

This is the THIRD time I have called you on your attempted straw man.

From the picture you provided... Are you going to claim the pressure at the top is the same as the pressure at the bottom?
Quote from: 12 1527
THAT'S THE GLOBE MODEL
Quote from: 12 1529
Air pressure next to vaccume is the model you subscribed to. So I'm asking how do you have air pressure next to a void?
Quote from: 12 1533
The highlighted part is where i was drawing my point. No, obviously there's more pressure towards the bottom because electrostatics (not gravity) create the downward vector. But it says a container. You need a container to have pressure.
Quote from: 12 1603
➽ THAT'S THE GLOBE MODEL

From the picture you provided... Are you going to claim the pressure at the top is the same as the pressure at the bottom?
Quote from: 12 1623
No. And are you refusing to answer my question? Tacit procuration, or Silence is acquiescence. Are you agreeing that you can't have air pressure next to a vaccume without a physical barrier?
Quote from: 12 1628
Why does the pressure decrease as elevation increases?
Quote from: 12 1630
How do we have air pressure in the first place? I want an answer. You are tip-toeing around this question. How do we have air pressure next to a vaccume?
Quote from: 12 1637
Density makes heavier molecules settle closer to earth while lighter, less dense (more positive electrostatic potential) gases like helium, zenon, etc, settle upward. But you can't have gas pressure without a container, right? We have to either agree or disagree on this point.
Quote from: 12 1643
➽ air pressure next to a vaccume?

I have NOT claimed any such bullshit. That's ALL yours.

What is it now? Four or five times I've challenged you on your assumption... Almost to the point of an out right straw man.

➽ How do we have air pressure in the first place?

That is actually a very good question.
As I recall, you spewed some BS about electrostatic charge attraction. Which you just did again while I was typing this reply. That you are wrong is of no import at this moment.

What causes convection currents?
Quote from: 12 1701
A differential in high and low pressure causes wind. That's what i mean by equalization. So we don't have a pressurized atmos? And space isn't a vaccume?
Quote from: 12 1702
That's not your claim but that's the globe model. I'm asking if you agree with the globe model in earth having a pressure system next to the void of space.
Quote from: 12 1710
You have not fully answered the question of what causes convection currents. Mea Culpa on the insufficient question.

What causes the differential in air pressure?
Quote from: 12 1714
Several things but temperature and electromagnetic fields are main causes. You have not answered my question at all, so. Whether it's your claim or not, can you have a pressurized system next to a vaccume without a barrier? Or will it equalize and cause convection currents?
Quote from: 12 1738
You keep demanding an answer you don't have the knowledge to understand.

So I am going to ignore your Gish Galloping and lead you by the hand, one Socratic Method question at a time.

How does temperature affect air pressure?
Quote from: 12 1742
Fuck you telling me what i know. You can't answer this question without sounding like a fucking moron. In you ball globe model does your atmosphere sit adjacent to the vaccume of space? Yes or no? I'm not answering anything else until you have some clarity on the model your believe in.
Quote from: 12 1817
How does temperature affect air pressure?
Quote from: 12 1820
That's an answer you can Google. Is there an experiment that could demonstrate how earth's atmosphere (high pressure) can exist next to space (low/ no pressure) without a physical barrier?
Quote from: 12 18222
You're asking about how i would suppose something containing the atmos, so I'm asking in your globe model how you can have air pressure next to a void.
Quote from: 12 1829
I don't need to search for the answer. I know it. You apparently do not.

So re-asking a prior question you ignored:
Why does hydrostatic lock fuck up a motor?
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 12, 2022, 06:15:47 PM
Quote from: 12 1832
I know what hydrolock is. I'm not answering shit until i get a definitive answer from you regarding your globe model. Can you have air pressure next to a vaccume without a barrier.
Quote from: 12 2115
You are the one ASSUMING the globe model has "air pressure next to a void".

I have NOT claimed any such bullshit. That's ALL yours.

How does temperature affect air pressure?
Quote from: 12 1927
Cooler make something more dense. And as something gets warmer out becomes less dense. Creating high and low pressure. The equalization is where we get wind from. Now you are here to and you said definitely prove the globe so, your globe model has air pressure correct, both high and low pressure? Now your globe model is in space a vaccume, correct?
Quote from: 12 2128
You do know the heliocentric model you ascribe to right?
Quote from: 12 2137
maybe i need to ask in a different way. If i asked you for 1 pound of helium, could you give it to me without a container?
Quote from: 12 2149
Why are commercial aircraft cabins pressurized?
Quote from: 12 2151
Non sequitur. Are you refusing to answer this simple question i have about your model?
Quote from: 12 2013
You keep demanding an answer you don't have the knowledge to understand.

So I am going to ignore your Gish Galloping and lead you by the hand, one Socratic Method question at a time.

Why are commercial aircraft cabins pressurized?
Quote from: 12 2018
You keep saying i don't have certain knowledge, I'm taking that as another ad hom. Ive shown every proof of claim to back any and all my statements. I think you know that if you answer the question you'll may be made to look foolish, so you're avoiding answering it at all cost. I'm not the one with a positive claim so if you can't answer my question ill have to go to someone more qualified that can.
Quote from: 12 2020
btw nothing has gone on the globe only basket, so maybe you've got the dunning Kruger going on.
Quote from: 12 2030
Yes... I keep saying you are missing certain knowledge.
Because you are missing certain knowledge.

So I am going to ignore your Gish Galloping and lead you by the hand, one Socratic Method question at a time.

Do you think commercial aircraft cabins are pressurized because the higher the elevation, the less dense the air is?
Quote from: 12 2032
Ok. If you make your point will you answer my question.
Quote from: 12 2033
Yeah and the less o2 there would be. I know the globe model, ass. What's your point?
Quote from: 12 2043
My point about density and pressure WILL answer your question.

Here's another Socratic question and its answer...

How does an altimeter work?

📖 Altitude can be determined based on the measurement of atmospheric pressure. The greater the altitude, the lower the pressure. When a barometer is supplied with a nonlinear calibration so as to indicate altitude, the instrument is called a pressure altimeter or barometric altimeter. A pressure altimeter is the altimeter found in most aircraft, and skydivers use wrist-mounted versions for similar purposes. Hikers and mountain climbers use wrist-mounted or hand-held altimeters, in addition to other navigational tools such as a map, magnetic compass, or GPS receiver.

The calibration of an altimeter follows the equation

    z = c T log ⁡ ( P o / P ) , z=c\;T\;\log(P_{o}/P),

where c is a constant, T is the absolute temperature, P is the pressure at altitude z, and Po is the pressure at sea level. The constant c depends on the acceleration of gravity and the molar mass of the air. However, one must be aware that this type of altimeter relies on "density altitude" and its readings can vary by hundreds of feet owing to a sudden change in air pressure, such as from a cold front, without any actual change in altitude.
[...]
In aircraft, an aneroid barometer measures the atmospheric pressure from a static port outside the aircraft. Air pressure decreases with an increase of altitude—approximately 100 hectopascals per 800 meters or one inch of mercury per 1000 feet or 1 hectopascals per 30 feet near sea level. 📖
Quote from: 12 2101
Ok i follow. You could use "downward acceleration" in place of g, but i follow.
Quote from: 12 2145
So if white is pressure, this image signifies and illustrates a pressure/density gradient.
I hope this informs you as to why I kept challenging your focus on "air pressure next to a void".
I'm done for tonight.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 13, 2022, 08:02:37 AM
Quote from: 13 0824
Is that box with the pressure gradient sealed? Like, is it representing air inside the box?
Quote from: 13 0901
No.

And the image is not a box. You are still not understanding the answer you keep demanding about pressure next to a vacuum.

You admitted(?) posted:
➽ Earth has air pressure 14.7 psi. Space is a vaccume 10-17 tore.
10-17 tore equals 0.1933672 to 0.3287243 psi

As elevation increases, air pressure AND air density decrease.

You claimed:
➽ I know what hydrolock is.

So I will assume you understand that liquid is NOT compressible.

This does not mean that liquid can't be put under pressure. Brakes, automatic transmissions, and hydraulic equipment. Not a good image attached. Verson 300 ton press brake I worked on. 16 foot bed for dies, 30 hp electric motor. I rebuilt the hydraulic control system. Those valves and their electric controls are all my work.

Why are gasses, on the other hand, compressible?
dresume/scan0015.jpg
(https://www.synapticsparks.info/dresume/scan0015.jpg)
Quote from: 13 0903
the molecules are not bonded like in a fluid.
Quote from: 13 0923
Are you admitting that gaseous (air) molecules have space between them?
Quote from: 13 0926
Yeah, that's not in contention. The reason i asked you about air pressure was to substantiate why we can assume there's something the sun gets lensed by but you went to an off point argument. I'm following what your saying and I'm hoping you'll answer my question once your point here is made.
Quote from: 13 1000
Fair enough.

My point is not a left field topic. There are several interconnected points here. Air lensing requires differing density. I know you understand that point. Density change can be abrupt like at the air/glass boundary, or it can be gradual with a density gradient.

This text goes with the attached image:
📖 A graded-index lens is a flat object that focuses light by changing the refractive index of the material as you go from the lens' center to its edge. Public Domain Image, source: Christopher S. Baird.
(https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/images/grin.png)📖

This variable density light bending is why I see half the Sears/Willis tower when the math says I should not. This is also why, and I'm repeating myself, celestial navigation demands no angles less than 20º. (I did not know this until this discussion's research brought this to my attention.)

This air distortion is also why Astronomy telescopes have been built on top of tall mountains. Less air between the scope and space.
Quote from: 13 1004
I don't remember the density index being integrated when you were doing the elevation angles but yes we get bending and magnification when we went over this earlier and i thought i showed we get this bending and magnification on a flat plane also. Continue.
Quote from: 13 1046
Magnification requires bending. Bending does not necessarily equate to magnification.

The light bending on the flat plane video was actually interesting to me.

But... Its flaw is that it required a specific shaped lens at a specific distance from the plane with an abrupt density change at the lens/air boundary. Its second flaw is that the "experiment" was not repeated with the light directly over one of the outer nails with the lens exactly where it was over the center nail.

Thus, it is an interesting oddity that does not invalidate the GE concept.
Quote from: 13 1046
I'm referring to this one not requiring a curved surface
Quote from: 15 1049
You did not tag me when you posted. It is only because I checked to make sure I didn't forget to post what I wrote.

As to that specific vid clip... It also has the same flaw as the one I thought you were referring to.

I'm not interested in digging through all the vids you posted to find the one that shows that... cough-ptooey... the flat lens between the camera and the ship analog. As I recall, the actual physical lens being used as a stand-in for the lensing of the gas is a flat fresnel lens. Attached image snagged of of Amazon.

This lens is of a specific shape. You've no causal mechanism to shape gas into the shape this lens is.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51vZMb+04NL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 15, 2022, 12:49:20 PM
Quote from: 15 1108
In other words the shape of the lens changes constantly depends on atmos conditions but the lensing effect cannot be denied.
Quote
As you stated, without any other considerations, I find your statement 100% accurate.

What the lensing affect is because of the shape and density of the gas is still in contention.
Likewise, the shape and density of the gas is still in contention.

I've had the attached image in my notes file for this discussion since October 20th.

Accompaning that image are these words:
📖 XEH is the true altitude from the observer’s height of eye.  However, due to refraction, the celestial body appears to be at Y and so YEH becomes the apparent altitude.

ET is a tangent from the observer’s eye to the Earth’s surface and so T1 should  mark the position of the horizon from E.

The theoretical angle of Dip is the angle HET; however, because refraction causes the horizon to appear to be in the direction of R, angle HER becomes the angle of dip.📖

These lensing affects have been known and understood by sailors using sails for hundreds of years. Definitely prior to Loran and GPS. GPS is another related sub-topic for later discussion.

Temperature gradients cause density (pressure) gradients.

Mirages if you will. The summertime appearance of what looks like water on a road at a distance from a viewpoint. In these specific cases, the line of sight bends up so the sky is being observed looking like water on the road.

(https://astronavigationdemystifieddotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/diag-27.jpg?w=640&h=481)
Quote from: 15 1156
Which kind of mirage? And do you have any experiment that can recreate something being projected over the bulge of a sphere to test at eye level?
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/mirages.jpg
Quote from: 15 1158
The globe wasn't created to 1400's the flat earth maps have been dated back over a thousand years. So celestial navigation was done using a flat map long before the globe was imagined. Loran proves no curvature because line of sight is required.
Quote from: 15 1201
Dip is to correct for hight above sea level to achieve a flat base line. I though we put this to rest already. Because an angle crossing two flat parallel base lines is going to generate the same angle. So on land you use an artificial horizon or bubble sextant and when on a boat it ship you correct for the observer hight and the optical horizon to creat a flat base line.
Quote from: 15 1409
➽ Which kind of mirage?

The fact that the image you posted with that question shows you do know "something" about mirages. Regardless, your bias is presenting you as denying ALL mirages are the same in regard to gas lensing. To include, especially, the bottom frame errantly labelled "No mirage".

That claim does NOT invalidate any of the image and related text I just posted.

➽ And do you have any experiment that can recreate something being projected over the bulge of a sphere to test at eye level?

That would be the bottom frame of your image and why I agreed that according to the math I should not see any of the Sears/Willis tower from the Kenosha beach.

Because of this knowledge I have acquired because of our discussion, I am going to have to go to that beach at different times of season to observed changed sections of what is visible of the tower.

The globe wasn't created to 1400's the flat earth maps have been dated back over a thousand years.

I've been in 48 continental united States and 6 Canadian provinces. Guess what maps I used?

A stack of maps 3/4 inch thick depicting 5 million square miles.

How big of a globe would I have required to have the usable resolution I needed to navigate the U.S.-Canadian road systems?

➽ Loran proves no curvature because line of sight is required.

Why do you think I only stated GPS for further discussion? This is you attempting to D⁵ again.

And I know that the difference in radio energy velocity over land is different from over water. So let this be warning that I often know more than I present. I decline to follow your irrelevant red herring.

➽ Dip is to correct for hight above sea level to achieve a flat base line.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Your bias is causing you to make an error in regard to angular measure. Angular measure is an ANGLE.

I do not feel like counting pixels to show orientations other than what I can easily do with the M$ paint program.

Your fixation on this "base line" and its flatness makes no sense. A "flat base line" is NOT required to measure an angle.

➽ Because an angle crossing two flat parallel base lines is going to generate the same angle.

You understand that fact. Good.

➽ So on land you use an artificial horizon or bubble sextant and when on a boat it ship you correct for the observer hight and the optical horizon to creat a flat base line.

Are you claiming one does NOT use a bubble sextant on a ship?

Are you not aware that artificial horizons are perpendicular to the force of gravity. (I am aware of, and ignoring, your claim of electrostatic attraction in lieu of gravity. That's another future discussion point.)

Furthest north I have been is Edmonton, Saskatchewan, Canada. 53.6º North in the summer. It was interesting to observe that the northern glow of the sky at midnight local time was just like dusk at 43º north where I lived since the sun... Didn't conform to the FE claims of sunset. Arctic circle about 66.5º latitude. So only about 800 miles south, short of watching the sun not set.
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/FlatGlobeMapArea.png
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 15, 2022, 03:15:17 PM
Quote from: 15 1500
1. That's just an observation, there would need to be an experiment with an independent verifiable that can be manipulated to validate the hypothesis that that image is bending around a physical curve.
2. When on a ship using the natural horizon you would use the dip because your finding that flat- level base line in other to make that angle. If you have a self leveling sextant that's not necessary.
3. I don't know what the last statement means
Quote from: 15 1512
did that example of gas/ air pressure make sense?
Quote from: 16 0844
➽ 1. That's just an observation, there would need to be an experiment with an independent verifiable that can be manipulated to validate the hypothesis that that image is bending around a physical curve.

This is where your bias/belief and mine clash. You are choosing to ignore inconvenient facts that contradict your bias. Given the nature of this discussion, I should have worded my statement like this: You are choosing to ignore inconvenient information that contradict your bias.

You claim gas lensing. Said lensing bends light. Bending light can bend around an obstruction.

In my youth I could put enough spin on the Cue ball to give it a curved motion right around the other guy's solid to knock my stripe into the pocket. That's on the flat plane of the billiards (pool) table. I could also hit the cue ball so the curve was off the table's plane and over the other guy's ball.

You are refusing to admit to curved bending caused by density gradients. This is what causes the mirages shown in all four parts of your mirages image.

You applying a double standard to your own information. Turning this around, using your own point: there would need to be an experiment with an independent verifiable that can be manipulated to validate the hypothesis that the light is bending and causing the mirages shown in the top three parts of your mirages image.

You are ignoring the inconvenient information that astronomers want their telescopes as high up above the denser as possible because the affect of gas on light is known. I'm sure if I were to chase down certain information with a question, the professional astronomers will give an angle they will not look below when doing their astronomy.

➽ 3. I don't know what the last statement means

Because you are not good at communicating what you are actually referring to, I am forced to assume this is the last statement you don't understand:

Furthest north I have been is Edmonton, Saskatchewan, Canada. 53.6º North in the summer. It was interesting to observe that the northern glow of the sky at midnight local time was just like dusk at 43º north where I lived since the sun... Didn't conform to the FE claims of sunset. Arctic circle about 66.5º latitude. So only about 800 miles south, short of watching the sun not set.

My personal first hand knowledge confirms a globe earth. If I was 800 miles further north, the sun would not set.

➽ did that example of gas/ air pressure make sense?

Which example? You are again communicating poorly.
Quote from: 16 0933
Putting spin on your que ball isn't an experiment for refraction bending light around an object and projecting it up to the eye level of an observer.
The midnight sun works on the gleasons map, so i don't know why you think that's gonna go in the globe only basket.
Quote from: 16 1129
➽ Putting spin on your que ball isn't an experiment for refraction bending light around an object

The purpose of my billiards comment was to deny your bias that bendy things can't bend around some obstruction.

➽ and projecting it up to the eye level of an observer.

This is you admitting you don't understand optics because of your FE bias.

This is you admitting you don't understand level.
Simple Euclidean geometry.
The horizon does NOT rise to eye level. A level line of sight at eye level will NEVER view the horizon. In either FE or GE models or in actual reality (whichever model is actually reality). Can you comprehend this provable fact or do you want me to draw you a picture?

➽ The midnight sun works on the gleasons map,

Explain the motive mechanism by which this works, else, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Do not forget to explain the seasonal changes of 24 hours of no sun in the winter as well as the 24 hours of sun.
Quote from: 16 1146
i need you to stop telling me what o know. Optics of the eye make an apparent horizon at the observers eye level. Everything converges to a vanishing point. The globe requires a physical geographic horizon. A horizon that is a an actual position that's been refuted by several on my photos and videos. We'll get into season if you want. But you've still been dodging the question about pressure systems.
Quote from: 16 1151
I've shown experimental evidence of how this is possible on a flat surface.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/284517977025750/posts/471843484959864/?comment_id=471847798292766&reply_comment_id=509339147876964
Quote from: 16 1152
But i haven't seen any experimental evidence that shows how this is possible on a shpere. Do you have that?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/284517977025750/posts/471843484959864/?comment_id=471847798292766&reply_comment_id=509339394543606
Quote from: 16 1152
More shitty diapers
Quote from: 16 1203
Season work because the sun as it goes around the earth plane moves from the inner north at the tropic of Cancer to the outer south to the tropic of Capricorn every six months in and six mints back out. While the sun reaches its inner most track it never gets far enough away to set for places like Alaska where they get the 24 hour sun, while the sun is to far away from Antarctica for the sun to rise(due to perspective). Jump forward six months the suns track is now at its outer-most circuit and is to far away from Alaska to get a sun rise. There is no 24 video of the 24 hour sunlight in Antarctica. There's like 2 videos and they are heavily edited. Antarctica can receive 24 hours of daylight(not sunlight) and there's experiments to show how that's possible. Now the big difference is when you look at the difference in biodiversity at equal latitudes north and south, where as in a ball the equal distances from the equator should experience similar phenomenon as far as plant and animal diversity and length of twilight before sunrise and sunset. But twilight is very brief in the southern latitudes due to the fact that the linier speed of the sun is increased (not its angular speed)
Quote from: 16 1204
https://youtu.be/zvVXxfkyX1Q
Quote from: 16 1206
https://youtu.be/uISmQupt8po
Skiba moron.
Quote from: 16 1317
➽ daylight(not sunlight)

Are you trying to get me to call you names?

You posted a load of D⁵: Attempts to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail.

I told you, I am archiving this discussion. I've spent a lot of time reading and rereading your FE claims.

I posted:
⇉ Explain the motive mechanism by which this works, else, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Do not forget to explain the seasonal changes of 24 hours of no sun in the winter as well as the 24 hours of sun. ⇇

I am now copy-pasting-quoting your words that you imply answers my challenge.

➽ Season work because the sun as it goes around the earth plane moves from the inner north at the tropic of Cancer to the outer south to the tropic of Capricorn every six months in and six mints back out. While the sun reaches its inner most track it never gets far enough away to set for places like Alaska where they get the 24 hour sun, while the sun is to far away from Antarctica for the sun to rise(due to perspective). Jump forward six months the suns track is now at its outer-most circuit and is to far away from Alaska to get a sun rise.

➽ Antarctica can receive 24 hours of daylight(not sunlight) and there's experiments to show how that's possible.

Just like your video of a specific shaped lens at a specific altitude makes the trig math "possible" on a flat earth. My objection to that specific load of shit from you is the same as my objection to this specific claim.

ℙ𝕆𝕊𝕊𝕀𝔹𝕃𝔼 does not mean 𝕀𝕊.
Your flat earth bias double standard is showing... again.

➽ Now the big difference is when you look at the difference in biodiversity at equal latitudes north and south, where as in a ball the equal distances from the equator should experience similar phenomenon as far as plant and animal diversity

Thank you for admitting you don't know shit about what causes biodiversity.

➽ Now the big difference is when you look at the difference [...] at equal latitudes north and south, where as in a ball the equal distances from the equator should experience similar [...] length of twilight before sunrise and sunset. But twilight is very brief in the southern latitudes due to the fact that the linier speed of the sun is increased (not its angular speed)

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I challenged you to explain the mechanism of how 24 hour sunlight

Explain the motive mechanism by which this ➽ "midnight sun works on the gleasons map."

You have blatantly failed to do so. Instead, you made another claim:
➽ While the sun reaches its inner most track

So again, I question your FE claim. Explain the motive force(s) mechanism(s) by which this inner and outer tracking works, else, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

➽ There is no 24 video of the 24 hour sunlight in Antarctica. There's like 2 videos and they are heavily edited.

Is this one of those two videos?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndlQNicOeso
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 16, 2022, 05:00:10 PM
Quote from: 16 1528
You are asking 6questions at a time and then getting mad when i try to adress all of them. I'm trying to understand the globe model before you can start to critique a flat model. Im Still waiting for an answer regarding air pressure.
Quote from: 16 1530
Talking possibilities. Is it possible to have high pressure next to low pressure with out equalization or a physical barrier. Answering this will help substantiate my answers to a specific lens. Help me help you.
Quote from: 16 1759
➽ You are asking 6questions at a time and then getting mad when i try to adress all of them.

October 2 18:42:
I have copied your 15:55 and 16:20 posts to my archive of our discussion. So I have a record to refer to so that I don't miss or ignore your points.
October 12 12:47:
I've got all your words saved in an archive of this discussion.
October 23 12:42
I am saving your words of this discussion to an archive. So even though I do not directly respond to your words, I've saved them for to (maybe?) respond later.
October 25 15:04:
I will remind you that I am copy pasting this discussion into an archive. There are claims you have made that I intend to examine.
October 29 1103:
As I said, I'm archiving this discussion so I can refer back to things written by both of us.
November 9 1327:
I told you I'm archiving this discussion as it happens. Makes it very easy to go back and search out phrases posted.
November 16 1317:
I told you, I am archiving this discussion. I've spent a lot of time reading and rereading your FE claims.

Here's the questions (and challenges counted as questions) to bolster your implication that I'm Gish Galloping like you have been doing from the beginning of this discussion. These are presented in inverse order from my 16 1317 post backwards in time:

November 16 1317:
❶ So again, I question your FE claim. Explain the motive force(s) mechanism(s) by which this inner and outer tracking works, else, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
❷ Explain the motive mechanism by which this ➽ "midnight sun works on the gleasons map."
❸ Are you trying to get me to call you names?
November 16 1129:
❹ Explain the motive mechanism by which this works, else, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
❺ Do not forget to explain the seasonal changes of 24 hours of no sun in the winter as well as the 24 hours of sun.
❻ Can you comprehend this provable fact or do you want me to draw you a picture?
November 16 0844:
❼ Which example?
November 15 1409:
❽ Are you not aware that artificial horizons are perpendicular to the force of gravity.
❾ Are you claiming one does NOT use a bubble sextant on a ship?
❿ Why do you think I only stated GPS for further discussion?
⓫ How big of a globe would I have required to have the usable resolution I needed to navigate the U.S.-Canadian road systems?
⓬ Guess what maps I used?

Which insult do you think you just earned? "You're full of shit", or "You're a fucking liar"?

➽ I'm trying to understand the globe model before you can start to critique a flat model.

Your FE bias is preventing you from understanding.

➽ Im Still waiting for an answer regarding air pressure.

I have given you that answer multiple times.

Ah yes... There's that air pressure question again.

➽ Is it possible to have high pressure next to low pressure with out equalization or a physical barrier.

I decline to follow this red herring of yours beyond the next four sentences:
There is no high pressure atmosphere next to the no pressure space. Pressure gradient is the reason why this is so. The higher in elevation, the lower the pressure... Until there is no pressure because there is no atmosphere.

Now back to the issue you are attempting to ignore...

You claimed:
➽ While the sun reaches its inner most track

Second inquiry:
Explain the motive force(s) mechanism(s) by which this inner and outer tracking works, else, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Quote from: 16 1802
Explain how you have a pressure system next to a vaccume without it equalizing.
Quote from: 16 1810
There is no high pressure atmosphere next to the no pressure space. Pressure gradient is the reason why this is so. The higher in elevation, the lower the pressure... Until there is no pressure because there is no atmosphere.

White is high pressure. Black is low pressure.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cpR8ztwAFJo/UrHiV8L7qyI/AAAAAAAADo0/Ls6qgblqt1Q/s200/GSC00-UpperLayerNoDither.jpg)
Quote from: 16 1817
My point is there can be no pressure gradient without pressure. You can't have pressure without a container. Where the container? What's keeping the pressurized air from equalizing into the vaccume.
Quote
is that box the container?
Quote from: 16 1828
Why is sea level air pressure about 14.7 psi?
Quote from: 16 1830
can you have pressure without a container? For the 30th time that you either will not or cannot answer?
Quote from: 16 1831
The flat map isn't on trial the globe is the positive claim and i need an answer not a picture of shading from black to white
Quote from: 16 1842
➽ can you have pressure without a container?

Yes. The air pressure of about 14.7 psi at sea level.
Why is sea level air pressure about 14.7 psi?

➽ i need an answer not a picture of shading from black to white

Nope. You need to understand the answer as depicted in a density/pressure map illustrating the non-digital, non-quantum, analog reality of what a density/pressure gradient or spectrum is.
Quote from: 16 1853
you don't need a container to have air pressure, is your answer? Is there an experiment that can show air pressure next to vaccume without equalization?
Quote from: 16 1857
Please attempt to address my question:
Why is sea level air pressure about 14.7 psi?
Quote from: 16 2105
Can you provide one experiment as proof of this claim?
Quote from: 16 2107
No. Show me your claim has something to back it
Quote from: 16 2109
Your claim. Air pressure needs no container. Can you give me one experiment as proof of claim?
Quote from: 16 2110
I want to beat the horse for a second
Quote from: 17 1037
November 16 1146
➽ i need you to stop telling me what o know.

You are confused... Again...
You keep telling me what you don't know.
And I believe you when you tell me what you don't know.

There are many things you have told me you don't know.
There are many things you don't want to know.
That is my assessment from observing you move the goal posts.

So I'm again going to tell you what you don't know... History, technology, and science.

➽ Can you give me one experiment as proof of claim?

I can give you three...
But you'll find some way to deny them, to again show me your deliberate ignorance.

X-15, U-2, and SR-71.

X-15, Walker, 19 April 1962, the only pilot to fly past the Kármán line

September 30 14:08
➽ But what I'm saying is neither one proves anything. But one of them requires two presumptions. Does that make sense?

📖 Occam's razor
It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred. 📖

Your FE presumptions are many. I am focused on this set of presumptions particularly at this time:

November 16 1203
➽ Season work because the sun as it goes around the earth plane moves from the inner north at the tropic of Cancer to the outer south to the tropic of Capricorn every six months in and six mints back out. While the sun reaches its inner most track[...] But twilight is very brief in the southern latitudes due to the fact that the linier speed of the sun is increased (not its angular speed)

Explain your presumptions.
Third inquiry:
Explain the motive force(s) mechanism(s) by which this inner and outer tracking works.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 17, 2022, 09:43:39 AM
Quote from: 17 1039
You don't have any evidence to support your claim that air doesn't require a container in order to have pressure?
Quote from: 17 1042
I can give you three...
But you'll find some way to deny them, to again show me your deliberate ignorance.

X-15, U-2, and SR-71.

X-15, Walker, 19 April 1962, the only pilot to fly past the Kármán line
Quote from: 17 1043
That's not an experiment showing air pressure next to vaccume without equalization or a physical barrier
Quote from: 17 1046
Do you understand the question?
Quote from: 17 1055
➽ That's not an experiment showing air pressure next to vaccume without equalization or a physical barrier

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

X-15... eXperimental project aircraft 15.

➽ Do you understand the question?

I understand the question.
I am fully aware of your brain glitch.
You are too flat earth biased to comprehend the answer.

To assist in explaining the answer...

In your own words, explain to me what a "pressure gradient" is.
Quote from: 17 1057
To help me answer the question i need you to explain what gas pressure is. And how its measured. Fundamentals before we get ahead of ourselves.
Quote from: 17 1118
Look, a container.
https://youtu.be/HNYCdbDKOhA
Quote from: 17 1124
Air pressure gradient in a sealed container.
https://youtu.be/PXnaVvgaYY8
Quote from: 17 1125
I want an experiment that shows a gradient without a container.
Quote from: 17 1148
https://youtu.be/AH4WQtw6HJU
Quote from: 17 1219
Excerpt.
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/Excerpt.jpg
Quote from: 17 1231
➽ i need you to explain what gas pressure is.

If this is true, then why did you throw five shitty Gish Galloping diapers at the wall in an attempt to overwhelm me and an attempt to distract me...

This is YOU calling me by your maiden name:
16 1528
➽ You are asking 6questions at a time and then getting mad when i try to adress all of them.

Apparently, you still do not understand what Gish Galloping is... <shrug...> So I can't and don't expect you to cease your Gish Galloping.

➽ i need you to explain what gas pressure is.

Gas pressure is the kinetic contact of the gas molecules bouncing off of each other, and the walls of a container WHEN the gas is in a container. The analog visualization is the pool balls after the break shot. Brownian motion or movement is another look at the kinetic contact of gas molecules.

The attached image was taken from your video purporting to prove a container is required to have a pressure gradient.

➽ I want an experiment that shows a gradient without a container.

Take the water dish out of the tank and do the exact same thing while NOT in the fish tank container.

➽ Excerpt.

I'll be needing the link to the source of that excerpt.
Else, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Quote from: 17 1232
It's in a fucking container
Quote from: 17 1232
That's why I'm asking you for an experiment of pressure gradients absent a container.
Quote from: 17 1237
You can't have pressure gradients in fluid without lateral pressure. And you can't have pressure gradients in gases without a container. If you can, like you claim that requires evidence. That's what I'm waiting for.
Quote from: 17 1239
Watch that 54min video when you get some free time.
Quote from: 17 1246
Go conduct your own fucking experiment. Get a container of water, put it on a table, drop some dry ice in it to make fog. Observe the motion of the fog because of its denser, heavier properties as it flows out of the water dish onto the table and spreads out... Maybe even down on to the floor before the temp rise causes the vapor condensation to evaporate.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 17, 2022, 12:01:57 PM
Quote from: 17 1251
It's in a container and they pressurized the tank. A container, something your model doesn't have. I understand gas pressure requires a container or it will equalize. Your model has no barrier between the pressure system and the vacuum. And you claim that a container is not required. I'm asking you for proof of this claim. Abscet that it's pseudoscience.
Quote from: 17 1254
The nature of air pressure is that high pressure flow to low pressure as equalization. Your model has high pressure next to no pressure without a physical barrier, and no equalization. Can this be replicated? Do you know the experiment i can see that would be proof of this claim?
Quote from: 17 1300
➽ Your model has no barrier between the pressure system and the vacuum.

➽ Your model has high pressure next to no pressure without a physical barrier, and no equalization.

That is a straw man. You are being deliberately ignorant.

Now post ten more Gish Galloping posts that have nothing to do with what I just accused you of doing.
Quote from: 17 1302
what's the strawman? That's the heliocentric globe model. At sea level air pressure is 14.7 there's no physical barrier and this should move to equalize to the super low pressure space vacuum.
Quote from: 17 1304
can you show me that you can have high pressure next to vacuum without a physical barrier?
Quote from: 17 1332
➽ what's the strawman? That's the heliocentric globe model. At sea level air pressure is 14.7 there's no physical barrier and this should move to equalize to the super low pressure space vacuum.

Your straw man is claiming there is 14.7 psi of air at the edge of space.

I never said that. The model doesn't claim that. That bullshit is all yours.

November 12 2115:
You are the one ASSUMING the globe model has "air pressure next to a void".
I have NOT claimed any such bullshit. That's ALL yours.

November 12 1643:
➽ air pressure next to a vaccume?
I have NOT claimed any such bullshit. That's ALL yours.
What is it now? Four or five times I've challenged you on your assumption... Almost to the point of an out right straw man.

November 12 1511:
You are the one CLUELESSLY claiming "air pressure next to a vaccume?".
I have NOT claimed any such bullshit. That's ALL yours.

November 12 1429:
You are the one CLUELESSLY claiming "The globe has air pressure, next to the vaccume of space.".
I have NOT claimed any such bullshit. That's ALL yours.

November 12 1406:
You are the one CLUELESSLY claiming "high pressure next to no pressure".
I have NOT claimed any such bullshit. That's ALL yours.
Repeat: You don't know what causes pressure gradients.

I have called you on that bullshit straw man multiple times.

I can only assume your ignorance is deliberate or you have a cognitive malfunction.

Because I'm still required to call you on the bullshit you are making up. To wit:
➽ can you show me that you can have high pressure next to vacuum without a physical barrier?

So now I'm going to attempt to drag your Gish Galloping ass back to the topic that explains this to rational folks...

➽ i need you to explain what gas pressure is.

Gas pressure is the kinetic contact of the gas molecules bouncing off of each other, and the walls of a container WHEN the gas is in a container. The analog visualization is the pool balls after the break shot. Brownian motion or movement is another look at the kinetic contact of gas molecules.
Quote from: 17 1335
I need you to take a breath. I said at see level there's 14.7. I said your model doesn't have a barrier between atmos and the vacuum of space.
Quote from: 17 1336
Second i need to be able to observe verify and replicate an experiment that substantiatesc this globe model claim.
Quote from: 17 1337
Image states:Gas pressure requires containment.
Quote from: 17 1338
You claim you can have air/ gas pressure with no container. You haven't shown anything to substantiate this claim. Airplanes in the sky isn't evidence. So either we can test this claim or it's pseudoscience.
Quote from: 17 1402
➽ You claim you can have air/ gas pressure with no container.

Again, you are making shit up and attempting to straw man because your FE bias won't allow you to understand the point you are steadfastly refusing to look at... Just like the Holy Roman Catlick Church refused to look through Galileo's Telescope. Eppur si muove.

➽ Airplanes in the sky isn't evidence.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

In this instance though:
Barometric altimeters are evidence of pressure/density gradients.

The higher one goes, the closer to space one gets, the less the pressure becomes.

➽ So either we can test this claim or[...]

It has been tested you historical technical illiterate.

X-15, Walker, 19 April 1962, the only pilot to fly past the Kármán line.

📖 As the X-15 also had to be controlled in an environment where there was too little air for aerodynamic flight control surfaces, it had a reaction control system (RCS) that used rocket thrusters. 📖
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 17, 2022, 01:20:54 PM
Quote from: 17 1409
Based on the nature of air pressure you are either presupposing that you don't need a container for air pressure, or that something is keeping the atmos from escaping into space. An altimeter is evidence of pressure/ density gradients that's not in dispute. What's in dispute is the ability to have a pressure system with gradients therein, without a physical barrier containing them.
Quote from: 17 1414
That doesn't prove the gas isn't contained. There is no experiment that can demonstrate a sealed box, in a vacuum, being opened up(removing the physical barrier) and it not equalizing. How does the earth maintain its atmos without it equalizing into space?
Quote from: 17 1420
➽ How does the earth maintain its atmos without it equalizing into space?

That would be the "something" ... "keeping the atmos from escaping into space"

➽ something is keeping the atmos from escaping into space

Huzzah!

That "something" is what is causing the pressure density gradients.
That "something" has everything to do with what is called "down".
Quote from: 17 1424
Gravity! Why could you not have said that sooner? So gravity is pulling the water and air towards the center of the earth and the vacuum of space isn't able to over power it?
Quote from: 17 1504
➽ Gravity! Why could you not have said that sooner?

October 17 16:57
➽ we'll get to the lack of evidence for gravity in due time
October 30 1758
➽ gravity hasn't been "proven"(in taking about the causality not the effect)
November 4 1050
➽ the theory of gravity that's never been proven
November 5 1144
➽ I'll wait for an experiment to qualify and quantify gravity.
November 12 1533
➽ No, obviously there's more pressure towards the bottom because electrostatics (not gravity) create the downward vector.

➽ So gravity is pulling the water and air towards the center of the earth and the vacuum of space isn't able to over power it?

Huzzah!
Quote from: 17 1511
ok let me see if i understand this correctly. The weak low pressure i can generate with my cheeks and lungs can pull air and water up away from the earth though a drinking straw effortlessly, yet the more powerful tore 17 vacuum of space can't?
Quote from: 17 1526
So we either need an experiment to show that two pressure systems can exist without a barrier or equalization. Or we need an experiment where we can have a bowl in a vaccume chamber and the chamber pumped out through the bottom leaving a pocket of air in the bowl because gravity is holding it in place? I would hypothesize that ask the air would be ducked out because the bowl isn't a container. Would you hypothesize that gravity would hold some air in the bowl?
Quote from: 17 1551
Your are NOT vacuuming anything up that straw. Assuming you are creating a perfect vacuum, it is the approximate 14.7 psi PUSHING the drink up the straw. This is why the development of a perfect vacuum on one side of a "U" shaped tube will NEVER draw more than 29.929503666738164 inches of mercury.

Do the same thing with a "U" tube of water, the water on the vacuum side of the tube will boil. If not for the low pressure causing a boil, you could get 407.8 inches of water. Inverse affect of a pressure cooking pot, and the reason why high elevation cooking requires more time to cook.

Fill your sink with water. Dip a glass and let the air bubble out. Tip the glass upside down. Pull the glass, bottom first, out of the sink. The glass of water will remain in the glass until the lip breaks the seal with the sink's water surface, at which time the air will rush to the top of the glass releasing the vacuum and the hold on the water in the upside down glass.

See the vid I will attempt to upload next.
Quote from: 17 1618
The vacuum in the glass is contained when you broke the seal(the container) it equalized. That's not evidence of high pressure next to low without equalization or a physical barrier. That's a physical barrier being removed and then equalization happens.
Quote from: 17 1630
I'm not creating vacuum in creating low pressure high pressure moves to low pressure the low pressure i can generate is nothing compared to what low pressure space is claimed to be. Yet the weak force of low pressure i can create cannot be negated by gravity. How is my weak low pressure able to do this yet the void of space cannot?
Quote from: 17 1638
➽ the low pressure i can generate is nothing compared to what low pressure space is claimed to be

Which vacuum is greater? Vacuum A @ 0.000 psi or Vacuum B @ 0.000 psi.
Quote from: 17 1642
those are the same numbers? That doesn't answer the question. Your claiming that gravity, a force you can't validate is responsible for holding on to the water and air against the extreme low pressure, that you can't validate, of space. When in thermodynamics we know that gases need a container in order to achieve pressure. You the burden of proof is on you to validate these claims.
Quote from: 17 1645
Yes. Those are the same numbers. Now address what you claimed:
➽ the low pressure i can generate is nothing compared to what low pressure space is claimed to be

Which vacuum is greater? Vacuum A @ 0.000 psi or Vacuum B @ 0.000 psi.
Quote from: 17 1647
The human lungs cannot generate a torr 17 vaccume, like space is claimed to be. I don't know what your are comparing.
Quote from: 17 1650
If the weak low pressure i can generate with my lungs Is strong enough to lift water and air up away, defeating gravity, what mechanism is keeping the air from being equalized into space and preventing the water from boiling off?

17 torr = 0.32872517psi
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 18, 2022, 07:29:27 AM
Quote from: 18 0839
September 30 14:08
➽ But what I'm saying is neither one proves anything. But one of them requires two presumptions. Does that make sense?

📖 Occam's razor
It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred. 📖

Your FE presumptions are many. I am focused on this set of presumptions particularly at this time:

November 16 1203
➽ Season work because the sun as it goes around the earth plane moves from the inner north at the tropic of Cancer to the outer south to the tropic of Capricorn every six months in and six mints back out. While the sun reaches its inner most track[...] But twilight is very brief in the southern latitudes due to the fact that the linier speed of the sun is increased (not its angular speed)

Explain your presumptions.
Fourth inquiry:
Explain the motive force(s) mechanism(s) by which this inner and outer tracking works.
Quote from: 18 0845
how could anyone know for sure, especially since idon't think anyone has been past 72 miles high. I'm still working on your model because your model cousins such a thing as having air bubbles in a vacuum, yet you can't quantify this claim.
Quote from: 18 0854
i can say i don't know the causality of the motions of the celestial bodies. What i do know is many claims if the globe model have no evidence to support them. That's why I'm trying to understand how there's gas balls in a vacuum. You claim gravity but theres no experimental evidence to support the claim of gravity. You claim earth has a molten magnetic core, but magnets lose their magnetism at the curey point. You claim you can have a pressure system next to a vacuum but have no experimental evidence to support that claim.
Quote from: 18 0927
➽ idon't think anyone has been past 72 miles high

Just because YOU don't believe anybody has been over 72 miles high doesn't mean nobody has ever been over 72 miles high.

Your belief, your opinion, your claim...
is presented without proof.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Your opinion is dismissed just as easily. 𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖆𝖗𝖊 𝖜𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖌.

November 18 0854
➽ i can say i don't know the causality of the motions of the celestial bodies

You have presented as your belief, your opinion, your claim:

November 16 1203
➽ Season work because the sun as it goes around the earth plane moves from the inner north at the tropic of Cancer to the outer south to the tropic of Capricorn every six months in and six mints back out. While the sun reaches its inner most track[...] But twilight is very brief in the southern latitudes due to the fact that the linier speed of the sun is increased (not its angular speed)

I have specifically requested you to explain this particular belief-opinion-claim.

Not only does this claim have no proof, you have failed to even attempt to explain the mechanics and forces that could or would make the sun move as you claim.

Your failure to give a credible explanation is fatal to your attempt to prove a flat earth.

Explain your presumptions.
Fifth inquiry:
Explain the motive force(s) mechanism(s) by which this inner and outer tracking works.
Quote from: 18 0929
How many times would nasa have to be shown faking space before we can discredit Anthony they show?
Quote from: 18 0932
Explain your presumptions.
Sixth inquiry:
Explain the motive force(s) mechanism(s) by which this inner and outer tracking works.
Quote from: 19 0932
I can answer that definitely. That's just the observation. The effect, if you will
Quote from: 18 0937
It could be done kind of super conductor or tesla,coil type of function. But we could speculate on what it is all day. But before we can discredit these speculations, i want to finish trying to substantiate the model you subscribe to. So i still wait for an experiment that demonstrates air pressure next to vacuum without equalization. Magnets that retain magnetism beyond the curey point, and something to substantiate gravity.
Quote from: 19 0945
18 0937
➽ It could be done kind of super conductor or tesla,coil type of function.

How would a super conductor or a tesla coil cause the observed motion?
Quote from: 18 1004
well since i understand that you can't have air pressure without containment and you can't seem to refute it. I have to assume we're in a closed system. So have you seen a tesla coil flouress noble gasses like would be in the lower pressure side of the gradient the higher you go up?
https://youtu.be/nYWP4Djqj18
Watch the noble gases light up!
Quote from: 18 1004
https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxO1dOti43EqTrpbhTjAbccmsDlNcIpM-u
Experiment at -196°C, Quantum Levitation | Magnetic Games
Quote from: 18 1026
https://youtu.be/pOAJeojbduA
The 7 Noble Gases Reacting to a Tesla Device Look Like The Colours of the Sky at Sunset/Sunrise
Quote from: 18 1028
Again this is just speculation. But i still want to finish beating the horse over having a pressure system next to vacuum without equalization. Is there a way to demonstrate gravity holding onto air molecules so a vacuum can't pull them away?
Quote from: 18 1104
I did NOT ask you for your opinion as to what makes the sun produce light.

Show me a prism breaking the light of each of those gasses and comparing the spectrum with that of actual sunlight.

That makes your first response with the video titled "Watch the noble gases light up!" and your third response with the video titled "The 7 Noble Gases Reacting to a Tesla Device Look Like The Colours of the Sky at Sunset/Sunrise" just some more of your Gish Gallop bullshit.

Your second video titled "Experiment at -196°C, Quantum Levitation | Magnetic Games" is recognized as your attempt to address How would a super conductor or a tesla coil cause the observed motion?

Though the video is a plausible attempt to explain the sun keeping its elevation above a flat earth, the plausibility fails when one observes that the earth's magnetic lines of force do not support the weight of the superconductor as shown in the vid. Also, as shown in the vid, the elevating force only holds the superconductor a few inches above the manufactured magnets with their magnetic lines of force being much stronger than the earth's.

The video does NOT show the lines of force. Something easily shown with iron filings. Magnetic lines of force have vector, that is azimuth and elevation. Earth's very weak magnetic force has both an azimuth vector and an inclination vector.

This video fails to explain the motive force mechanism. The superconductor did NOT move around the magnet track until that hand applied a physical force to make the superconductor move.

What force defines the inner and outer track you allege exists per the track required and shown in your video?
What force makes/made the sun move around the alleged inner and outer track?
Quote from: 18 1111
You wanted speculation. You haven't quantified or qualified how the heliocentric model works. So while i have some ideas they are not clsimed to be believed out right. You haven't substantiated the model you believe in yet. So can we finish substantiating how the heliocentric model is even possible? So far we are waiting to see how air pressure can work next to a vacuum. You claimed gravity, but don't have any experiment to substantiate this. You mentioned earth's magnetic field yet you have no evidence of a magnet retaining is magnetism beyond the curey point. Again So far nothing has gone on the globe only basket.
Quote from: 18 1205
18 1111 ➽ You wanted speculation.

Yes. I did. Yes I do.

I am NOT interested in your Gish Galloping bullshit. I am not interested in chasing your moving goal posts.

My intent right now is to determine if your speculation is credible and plausible.
If your speculation is not credible and plausible, then neither is your claim:

November 16 1203
➽ Season work because the sun as it goes around the earth plane moves from the inner north at the tropic of Cancer to the outer south to the tropic of Capricorn every six months in and six mints back out. While the sun reaches its inner most track[...] But twilight is very brief in the southern latitudes due to the fact that the linier speed of the sun is increased (not its angular speed)

You have attempted to explain the mechanics and forces that could or would make the sun move as you claim.

I will continue to point out the flaws in your claims and question your claims.

These questions have not been addressed:

What force defines the inner and outer track you allege exists per the track required and shown in your video?
What force makes/made the sun move around the alleged inner and outer track?
Quote from: 18 1207
So when you can't substate the model you beleive in you attack the patchwork model of the fe?
Quote from: 18 1208
That's a shifting the burden fallacy
Quote from: 18 1231
➽ So when you can't substate the model you beleive in you attack the patchwork model of the fe?

I am not going to chase your moving goal posts.

➽ That's a shifting the burden fallacy

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Your claim is dismissed just as easily as you made it. 𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖆𝖗𝖊 𝖜𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖌.

The burden of proof is on you historical, technical, scientific illiterates claiming established astronomical science is all a conspiracy.

Cui bono?
Quote from: 18 1234
Appeal to the crowd fallacy, Appeal to authority fallacy. And still shifting the burden of proof.
Quote from: 18 1235
So we need to substantiate the positive claims of the globe model. That's what this whole conversation was stated for, definitive proof of the globe, you said you have.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 19, 2022, 07:05:32 AM
Quote from: 22 1412
Part 1

November 18 1235
➽ That's what this whole conversation was stated for, definitive proof of the globe, you said you have.

The only reason this conversation has continued as long as it has is because YOU managed to actually become the topic of MY study.

I had become curious about what mental contortions and mental gyrations you will go through to protect your magical thinking magical beliefs.

Noticeable is your selective memory.

September 30 11:14 you posted:
➽ I know you don't like to discuss the notion that the earth isn't a ball in an infinite space vaccume but

That half sentence informs me that at some point you did read my September 8 1635 post:

⇉ If I find flat earth beliefs in your posts in my feed, I am going to pretend I am new to the earth and ask you questions. If you do not engage with me and my questions honestly, I'll remove you as a friend. ⇇
https://www.facebook.com/dale.eastman.75/posts/pfbid035NxqrAjWMRG2yWNDgJUuhis8PdXH9Jhni82Zyc73cxLBQtv1vbsodMJJaeDmKyZWl

In view of those two hard facts, I find your subtle attempt to spin the words of this discussion to support your magical belief dishonest, arrogant, and disrespectful. And not subtle enough for me to miss your attempts to control the narrative, topics, and discussion.

You have accused me of:
November 18 1234
➽ still shifting the burden of proof.

Which is EXACTLY what you are trying to do with this claim:

November 18 1235
➽ this whole conversation was stated for, definitive proof of the globe,

WOE UNTO ME... Alas, my dilemma... Was his statement a dishonest attempt to control the discussion, or just his being selectively forgetful?

November 16 1146
➽ But you've still been dodging the question about pressure systems.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Stating your opinion does not make your opinion reality.

I have continually been answering your question about pressure.

You have continually denied my answer in a manner that makes me wonder if you are too stupid to understand my answer or if you are so emotionally invested in your magical belief that you will deny anything that denies your magical belief. (I'm willing to bet you didn't believe your parents when they told you there's no monsters in the closet or under your bed. (Yes, that was an ad hominem where I attacked your brain-power.))

➽ idon't think anyone has been past 72 miles high

𝓣hat is your magical thinking. 𝓣hat is your magical belief. 𝓣hat is why I call you a historic and technical illiterate.
𝓣hat is why you refuse to understand my answer and keep spewing shit about pressure near vacuum.

𝓨ou refuse to accept that the further above earth something is, the less air pressure there is.
𝓨ou are telling me, via implication, that you don't believe barometric altimeters, the things that measure air pressure at elevation, are real.
𝓨ou are telling me that you don't believe the X-15, U-2, and SR-71 are real.
𝓨ou are telling me that you refuse to believe the altimeters until you personally get a ride in any sub-orbital machine.

Air pressure / air density is directly connected to the concept of atmospheric bending of light.

On November 3 @ 1439 you claimed:
➽ 1. Air plane windows have a concave to them.

𝓣his is your attempt to deny that I saw what I saw all those times I was a commercial airline passenger. My job was national field service. I flew a lot. So a got to look out a variety of airliner windows.
𝓣his is you telling me that you are willfully ignoring observations that prove a globe earth.
𝓣his  is you telling me that you are not a critical thinker and not able to critically examine information in your sight.

I will now critically examine your errant, biased belief that bent airliner windows cause the appearance of a curved earth on the horizon of a flat earth.

Your choice of calling the windows "concave" is you failing to address that from the other side the windows are convex. So you only focused on the part you believe bolsters your belief.

The webpage you cherry picked your curved windows proof from, to support your errant claim of a curved window causing a curved "looking" horizon, also stated:
📖 The outer panes are thicker at approximately 0.4” thick and carry the pressure loads for the life of the window, 📖

You willfully ignored from my quote of your chosen page: 📖 The outer panes [...] carry the pressure loads for the life of the window,📖 You willfully ignored the data that supports: higher elevation = less pressure, which supports different air pressure = air density GRADIENTS.

A majority of of the length of any passenger aircraft is a uniform radius tube. This means ANY window in that section of the tube will also be a uniform radius from front to back (left to right or right to left from the passenger seat) Therefore any bending you errantly assume would be different from front to back simply can not be. In order for the alleged flat horizon to bend down, the windows can NOT be uniform dimensions from front to back. This is you telling me that you did not apply any critical thought to this particular shit you threw at the wall to see if it would stick. It doesn't.

You willfully ignored when I pointed out these windows are of a uniform thickness, just like the windows on my car. And the side windows on my car are also curved just like the image from your article shows.

📖 For observers near sea level, the difference between this geometrical horizon (which assumes a perfectly flat, infinite ground plane) and the true horizon (which assumes a spherical Earth surface) is imperceptible to the unaided eye. However, for someone on a 1,000 m (3,300 ft) hill looking out across the sea, the true horizon will be about a degree below a horizontal line. 📖

No bent airliner window required.

Testing your bent window bullshit is as easy as looking out the window at a horizontal edge of something like the terminal building and seeing the same bend as the horizon. Did I mention I've looked out a lot of airliner windows?

I claimed, "you are also totally fucking clueless as to how lenses work" and you implied you understand how lenses work when you posted:
October 19 14:07 you replied:
➽ it bends toward the denser medium.

I challenged your understanding when I posted: "Why does the light bend when it enters a medium of different density?" and you  again implied you understand how lenses work when you posted:
November 12 1117
➽ In particle theory its because the speed the light travels is different in different mediums.

If the edges of the denser medium are parallel, the light leaves at the same angle it entered, though offset due to the thickness of the transparent medium.

So you have again told me what you don't know. Using your errant logic, anything horizontal I look at through my car's side windows should appear bent also.

You again fail at logic and critical thinking.
Quote from: 22 1420
Part 2

November 9 0726
➽ the horizon is still at eye level
November 12 1207
➽ the horizon remains at eye level
November 16 0933
➽ projecting it up to the eye level of an observer.
November 16 1146
➽ Optics of the eye make an apparent horizon at the observers eye level.

Horizon:
📖 the line at the farthest place that you can see, where the sky seems to touch the land or sea📖
📖 the place in the distance where the earth and sky seem to meet📖

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Horizons.svg

As shown in the Wikipedia linked image, "eye level" does not see the horizon.
"Eye level' is depicted by the horizontal line of the astronomical horizon shown in this image.
This astronomical horizon line of sight is parallel to the tangent of the surface where the observer stands.
Parallel lines, or parallel plains NEVER intersect.
So even on the alleged plane of the flat earth you errantly believe you stand on, and the horizontal, eye level, line of sight will never intersect the plane of the flat earth. One must look at an angle down to even see the horizon.

Therefore as a point of logic and critical analysis, your claims of horizons and eye level's is just you proudly claiming how willfully uninformed you are about geometry.

This discussion started with you asking on September 30 12:10:
➽  how earth's proposed size is known

To which I answered:
Trigonometry.

October 27 15:11
➽ If the math doesn't describe reality its bad math.

𝓦hat you really said was, If the math doesn't describe flat earth magical thinking, it's bad math.
𝓦hat you really said was, I don't believe in the math of trigonometry.
𝓦hat you implied was, Trigonometry is bad math.

You implied Trig is bad math by posting anything you could to deny that Trig is how the size of the globe earth was measured.

You even posted a video of how a flat earth ℂ𝕆𝕌𝕃𝔻 have angles of shadows matching the angles of a globe earth.
ℂ𝕆𝕌𝕃𝔻 does NOT mean 𝕀𝕊.
In order for "ℂ𝕆𝕌𝕃𝔻" to be "𝕀𝕊" a VERY SPECIFIC LENS SHAPE IS REQUIRED.
Your own video proved this.
You willfully ignored these points in favor of your magical thinking.
You built your alleged disproof of the trigonometry on this magical thinking.

You even went so far with your magical thinking, to attempt to deny gravity. Your October 30 post is you not even being consistent in your magical thinking claim.

October 17 16:57
➽ we'll get to the lack of evidence for gravity in due time.
October 30 1758
➽ gravity hasn't been "proven"(in taking about the causality not the effect)
November 4 1050
➽ the theory of gravity that's never been proven
November 4 1050
➽ And gravity is presupposed because we're on a ball yet you haven't qualified the ball
November 18 0854
➽ You claim gravity but theres no experimental evidence to support the claim of gravity.

Gravity is presupposed because you don't float off the ground.

So you double down on your magical thinking spewing your denial of gravity with "electrostatics" thereby telling me you do NOT understand electrostatics.

November 5 1034
➽ Are they defying gravity or repelling the earth's measurable negative charge?
November 5 1144
➽ Just by changing the positive electrostatic potential it repells earth measurable negative charge.
November 8 1127
➽ What we have done is experiment on somethings positive/ negative charge and we can cause an object to "defy gravity" just by changing its charge potential.
November 12 1349
➽ But the molecules with the higher positive electrostatic potential will draw closer to the measurably negative charge of the earth.
November 12 1533
➽ obviously there's more pressure towards the bottom because electrostatics (not gravity) create the downward vector.
November 12 1637
➽ Density makes heavier molecules settle closer to earth while lighter, less dense (more positive electrostatic potential) gases like helium, zenon, etc, settle upward.
Quote from: 22 1421
Part 3

ELECTROSTATICS:
Opposite charges attract. Like charges repel.
You contradict your own words. Thus you have proven you don't even proof read the crap you post.
After re-reading your magical thinking claims, I doubt you understand what causes electrostatic charges.

For all your claims of pressure "equalization" I wonder why you don't understand that differential charges will transfer electrons until charge is equalized.
This magical thinking, willful ignorance claim of static charges instead of gravity is you admitting you don't understand lightening strikes.

October 8 16:31
➽ 3. Eddy currents are subject to heat because of the cury point magnets lose their magnetism, so how is a presumed molten core presumed to have any magnetism?
November 18 0854
➽ You claim earth has a molten magnetic core, but magnets lose their magnetism at the curey point.
November 18 1111
➽ You mentioned earth's magnetic field yet you have no evidence of a magnet retaining is magnetism beyond the curey point.

This is you proudly telling me that you don't understand electro-magnetics.

November 18 1207
➽ So when you can't substate the model you beleive in you attack the patchwork model of the fe?

I do agree with your claim that your flat earth magical thinking is a "patchwork" model. Your magical belief patchwork is inconsistent. Your "patchwork" model is INCOMPLETE. You admitted this when you posted:
November 18 0854
➽ i can say i don't know the causality of the motions of the celestial bodies.

Your magical belief patchwork requires the imagining (making shit up) of a specific shaped lens at a specific distance. This magical lens requires a magical force to shape it and hold it in a specific position for the FE angles to match the GE measurements. You have built your alleged disproof of the globe math on this magical thinking.

The globe earth model is self consistent, is not a patchwork, incorporates all the physical science you deny with your magical thinking.

November 12 1438
➽ Earth has air pressure 14.7 psi. Space is a vaccume 10-17 tore.

17 torr = 0.32872517psi

Changing the units. Dishonest.
Or you did not learn negative numbers in math class.

November 16 1203
➽ There is no 24 video of the 24 hour sunlight in Antarctica. There's like 2 videos and they are heavily edited.

You willfully ignored this question:
November 16 1317
Is this one of those two videos?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndlQNicOeso

I found your rectal-cranial inversion.
November 6 0927
➽ rather than the center of an intelligently dedigned relm
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 23, 2022, 08:33:41 AM
Quote from: 22 1505
Still waiting for experiment of vaccume next to pressure without a barrier or equalization.
Quote from: 23 0933
I'm waiting for you to quit willfully ignoring facts placed in front of you.

If challenged on my claim that you are willfully ignoring facts placed in front of you, I would be forced to admit that you willfully ignoring facts is only my opinion... Because the alternative is you are too fucking stupid to understand the facts I have continually placed in front of you.

There is NO VACUUM next to pressure... Except in your delusional mind.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 25, 2022, 08:39:53 AM
Quote from: 23 0943
Then wtf is earth's air pressure contained by next to the vaccume of space. If you say gravity I'm going to need to see an experiment of gravity defying the force of vaccume in an experiment otherwise its pseudoscience. Do you understand that? I'm looking for an experiment that substantiates that claim.
Quote
First read: November 25 @ 09:36 hrs.
Second read: November 25 @ 12:31hrs.

Quit willfully ignoring the facts I placed in front of you.

23 0933
I'm waiting for you to quit willfully ignoring facts placed in front of you.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 28, 2022, 06:38:48 PM
Quote from: 28 1817
Keeping this conversation alive. By your silence are you agreeing that there's no experimental evidence to support the notion of a pressure system next to vacuum or extreme low pressure absent a physical barrier? And if your aren't going to concede and are instead contending that gravity (something unproven) is able to overpower a vacuum, would you provide the evidence that can demonstrate gravity defeating vacuum in an experiment? Im not going to move past this point until you concede or are able to rebutte.
Quote from: 29 1033
➽ By your silence are you agreeing <SNIP!>

With friends and family who say I've just been wasting my time by interacting with you.

➽ would you provide the evidence that can demonstrate gravity defeating vacuum in an experiment?

You have been WILLFULLY ignoring the evidence that I have placed in front of you.

https://www.virgingalactic.com/sign-up

Sign up and book a flight to take your delusional ass to the edge of space.

file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/Screenshot%202022-11-29%20at%2010-19-13%20U22_WEBSITE_EDIT_FINAL_MK_2022-02-08_1.mp4.png


https://videos.ctfassets.net/vsp83h9pnr7f/6iJRCQM2wxGRjCdk8Ay8EP/d90967a345551f5d308783c4cd954510/U22_WEBSITE_EDIT_FINAL_MK_2022-02-08_1.mp4
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/Screenshot%202022-11-29%20at%2010-18-17%20U22_WEBSITE_EDIT_FINAL_MK_2022-02-08_1.mp4.png

file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/Screenshot%202022-11-29%20at%2010-19-46%20U22_WEBSITE_EDIT_FINAL_MK_2022-02-08_1.mp4.png
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 29, 2022, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: 29 1056
You mean a recording studio? See this is how science works if there's a claim you need evidence to support it. If there were actual evidence, there wouldn't be any globe deniers. Saying gravity can hold water and air to the earth needs something to back it. When i can easily demonstrate the minute amount of low pressure from my mouth and lungs and easly defeat gravity and pull water and air away from the earth, but you can't show me one experiment where this magical gravity can defy the low pressure of space. If you can't validate this notion of gravity must have to understand you have pseudoscience and a dogmatic religious belief.
Quote from: 29 1100
still nothing has gone on the "globe only" basket.
Quote from: 29 1351
Sign up and book a flight to take your delusional ass to the edge of space.

➽ You mean a recording studio?

I am reading that comment as if you openly stated Virgin Galactic doesn't launch folks into and above the upper atmosphere.

Present verifiable evidence of this claim. Absolute proof is the only way to make your claim not libelous.

Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 30, 2022, 10:27:45 AM
Quote from: 29 1348
You don't understand that the positive claim is that virgin sent a rocket to space. Can you prove that it actually went up with people in it and that it actually landed back safe. Did you have an uncut/ unedit feed or was it cut edited and could be totally staged. If that's real i guess starwars was all real too. Again you can choose to believe they did that but to know(gnosis) means to know first hand. You have a great appeal to authority complex for someone who deems himself an anarchist/voluntryist. You have way more faith in the religion of government and propaganda than I. Again i used to beleive all the rocket launches and cgi, but that's only evidence of how easy it is to fool people who want their programming to be true.
Quote from: 29 1349
I'm just waiting for you to substantiate the claim that gravity can defy a vacuum. Im not going farther till this can be observed, verified, and repeated, you know, like the scientific method demands.
Quote from: 29 1356
now, I've seen an experiment where a guy takes a barometer in that tall building in Dubai and shows that there's a difference in pressure from the bottom floor and the top floor, but that's a begging the question fallacy and a reification fallacy, and doesn't refute the notion that air pressure requires a container. As I've shown that pressure gradients exist in containers. That experiment presupposes that the earth system isn't contained. Is there an experiment of a pressure gradient with no container that isn't fallacious?
Quote from: 30 1124
➽ idon't think anyone has been past 72 miles high

📖 Because you found something difficult to understand,
or are unaware of how it works,
you made out like it's probably not true.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity📖

You are willfully ignoring the data I have placed in front of you...
Just like the Holy Roman Catlick Church refused to look through Galileo's Telescope.

Eppur si muove.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/284517977025750/posts/471843484959864/?comment_id=510919904385555&reply_comment_id=520046980139514

https://www.facebook.com/groups/284517977025750/posts/519284680215744/?comment_id=519950840149128&reply_comment_id=520048103472735
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 30, 2022, 10:50:04 AM
Quote from: 30 1129
you are refusing to answer and provide evidence to a simple question, and using fallacious arguments. Like that appeal to authority you just used. Galileo a man you don't even know whether he existef or not. So can you provide the evidence for the claim that gravity can defy the force of a vacuum, or do you concede that there is no evidence that gravity can hold atmos in defiance of a vacuum?
Quote from: 30 1130
I've provided evidence for every claim I've made thus far, I'm asking you extend me the same courtesy.
Quote from: 30 1149
➽ I've provided evidence for every claim I've made thus far, <SNIP>
➽ You mean a recording studio?
⇉ I am reading that comment as if you openly stated Virgin Galactic doesn't launch folks into and above the upper atmosphere.
Present 𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓯𝓲𝓪𝓫𝓵𝓮 𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮 of this claim.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on November 30, 2022, 11:15:57 AM
Quote from: 30 1208
You have no way to prove that tho. There was no uncut uninterrupted feed of the whole this from stay to finish. For all you know it's a fucking movie. But the cgi was trash and all the breif scenes of waitlessness can be filmed in a zero-g plane. It was a cheap movie production at best. And cannot constitute evidence. Now can you answer my question or are you going to defer to another of point argument.
Quote from: 30 1215
Eppur si muove.
Quote from: 30 1245
Deflation. Can you provide proof of claim that gravity can defy vacuum? Or do you concede?
Quote from: 30 1248
Eppur si muove.
Quote from: 30 1253
Deflation. Qui tacet consentire videtur.
Quote from: 30 1257
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Quote from: 30 1311
I've posted evidence for every claim, you are failing to proving evidence for your claim. Now do you have evidence of gravity defying vacuum, or is it pseudoscience?
Quote from: 30 1317
Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use
Quote from: 30 1321
You haven't shown evidence that gravity can defy vacuum. You showed a picture that fades from black to white. Now that might be sufficient for you but that's not scientific in any way is there an experiment that can demonstrate what you're claiming?
Quote from: 30 1324
Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use
Quote from: 30 1327
If i missed it then please resubmit it.
Quote from: 30 1342
Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use
Quote from: 30 1354
i scrolled, the only thing i see is the picture of black fading to white called a gradient. But that isn't evidence that there's no container, nor that the supposed force called gravity can defy a vacuum. That is why i keep asking for evidence to support your claims. I explained that I've seen an "experiment" of a gradient within the tallest building in Dubai, however that experiment is a reification fallacy because it doesnt refute the notion that air pressure requires a container to begin with. So specifically i am still looking for experimental evidence that air pressure does not require a container, and your claim is that gravity is the reason air pressure does not require a container then i am looking for an experiment whereby gravity is shown to defy the force of a vacuum. Your seemingly inability to provide these proofs of claim is partly why there are so many people denying the globe model.
Quote from: 30 1357
Laugh emogis are considered ad hom.
Quote from: 30 1358
Are you conceding, or is there evidence for your claim?
Quote from: 30 1325
I have no duty to address your delusions...
So:

Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use

Move along.
You are dismissed.
Quote from: 30 1440
I thought this would be a good faith conversation. You clearly have been presented a contradiction in your logic, in witch you either have to acknowledge that you have no evidence to support your claim, and that a stupid half-wit flerfer has you stumped. By your silence, and refusal to answer you are agreeing that there actually is no scientific evidence to support the claim that gravity is somehow able to defy the 2nd law of physics, and your hardened ego will not allow you to admit that. Do this is one more thing that cannot go into the "globe only" basket. What's your next peice of evidence that supports your notion that you live on a spinny water rock in an infinite void?
Quote from: 30 1621
It was good faith until you willfully ignored evidence and used personal incredulity as your reason for doing so.
Quote from: 30 1738
What evidence? The picture that's just a fade from black to white? Im serious, what evidence are you referring to that satisfies my question about air pressure?
Quote from: 30 1753
You have willfully ignored the purpose and intent of that fade image.
That image is an analog showing a white color gradient.
Quote from: 30 1805
Right. Because that's not experimental evidence. That's a picture that looks like it was done in ms paint. It's there any experiment that can qualify what that gradient is attempting to demonstrate?
✩ ✪ ✫ ✬ ✭ ✮ ✯ ✰ ✱ ✲ ✳ ✴ ✵ ✶ ✷ ✸ ✹ ✺ ✻ ✼ ✽
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 01, 2022, 11:18:14 AM
Quote from: Kitty Eastman 30 1849

Dear Dale,
you are dealing with a brainless fucking idiot. Either push him off a tall building to prove gravity is real (put him in a rubber suit first) or stop engaging with this moron.
Love, your family and friends
Quote from: 30 1859
No one denies the EFFECT of gravity. Whats disputed is the CAUSE of gravity. I posted how a manipulating the independent veriable of the electrostatic charge of something using a vidergraph generator will cause an object to either rise or fall. Ulinke dale, here, i actually show experimental evidence to support my claims. Unless you can show me how space/time is bent, your beleive in pseudoscience.

30 1859 No one denies the EFFECT of gravity. Whats disputed is the CAUSE of gravity.

Quote from: 30 2105
you post pseudo science crap that proves nothing! Most of your nonsense ONLY works under very specific conditions and CAN NOT be repeated. Maybe you should study the differences between scientific LAW and scientific THEORY
Quote from: 30 2113
Neither you nor Dale have posted anything that's observable, verifiable, and repeatable, which the scientific method requires. I understand the difference between scientific law and scientific theory, what causes the effect we see and call gravity is a theory, hence theoretical physics. If you spent more time studying the experimental evidence instead of regurgitating what's in the Rockefeller school books you could provide the evidence needed to substantiate the claims being proposed instead of just ad homing, and reifying you deeply held but erroneous beliefs because it's too hard to accept that maybe you've been duped. So no ad homs, do you have evidence that Dale can't provide or are you just triggered?
Quote from: 30 2124
Pot, kettle, black. None of your alleged evidence is observable, repeatable, verifiable.
Quote from: 30 2131
Again so far nothing dale has provided goes in the "globe only" basket. Maybe you're better at providing evidence than dale so I'll ask you, then. Do you have or can you provide an experiment that shows air pressure next to vacuum without equalization or a physical barrier? Or if you contend that gravity nullifies this LAW of thermodynamics, can you provide an experiment whereby gravity can defy the force of a vacuum?
Quote from: 30 2133
get this through your thick stupid skull. Pressure gradients!!! Apparently you do NOT understand Gradients. Hint: figure out what GRADUAL means
Quote from: 30 2137
again, in order to have air pressure a container is required. Do you have evidence of air pressure absent a container? Providing this could shut me up for good.
Quote from: 30 2145
gas/air pressure requires a container.
Quote from: 30 2150
Again- ignoring the key word GRADIENT as in GRADUAL; figure that out first. I will NOT waste my time on more of your BS until YOU can prove you understand what GRADUAL means
Quote from: 30 2157
again I've already shown that pressure gradients exist within a container. Can you show air/gas pressure period without a container? You listen worse than dale.
Quote
pressure gradient existing within a container. Do you have evidence of pressure gradients absent a container, with out begging the question, and reification?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnaVvgaYY8
Quote from: 30 2205
You still do not understand what gradual means. Let’s try this is the air pressure in Chicago. The same as it is I need Evans Colorado?
Quote from: 30 2225
Your begging the question. Your presuming that you're not in a contained system. That's why I'm asking a prerequisite question of whether it's possible to have air pressure without a container in the first place.

30 2225 Your presuming that you're not in a contained system.

Quote from: 30 2229
YOU prove your bullshit first. Without throwing more bullshit videos that do NoT answer a single question. Also go back and read you own words. You contradict yourself in nearly every post
Quote from: 30 2231
i just did, air and gas pressure requires a container. I just showed 4 screen shots and a video as proof of my claim. Now stop shifting the burden of proof and show me where you can have air pressure without a container.
Quote from: 1 0101
All garbage and does not prove anything. Now you get your head out of your rectum and prove you understand what gradients and gradual mean
Quote from: 1 0737
at sea level relative air pressure is 14.7 the higher the altitude the lower the air pressure gets. That's the gradient. Density and buoyancy can account for this as the denser air is settled at the bottom. Now can you show me air pressure without a container? Can you show cacuum without a container? Can you show high pressure next to low pressure without equalization or a physical barrier? I've been asking Dale this for a month now and he can't seem to answer without a logical fallacy of being the question fallacy or a reification fallacy, or an ad hom. Is there an experiment you can site that demonstrates either of those things.
Quote from: 1 0752
Now I understand what Robert Heinlein meant when he said, never try to teach a pig to sing.
Quote from: 1 0920
gradient isn't an answer to the question. Gradients exist within containers. I'm asking for evidence of a air pressure with our without a gradient without containment. Do you have evidence or just now ad homs?
Quote from: 1 1257
Sing, Piggy, come on sing!
Quote from: 1 1258
ad homs, cool. I didn't think I'd get an intelligent answer from you.
Quote from: 1 1259
Kitty Eastman you do realize you're projecting right now. You're the pig that can't learn to sing.
Quote from: 1 1300
every flat earther used to beleive in the globe they were indoctrinated to believe. Then upon closer examination we actually humbled ourselves and admitting we were wrong.
Quote from: 1 1307
you’re own words right back at you
Quote from: 1 1308
so you have no evidence for what you're claiming either? Why did you even chime in?
Quote from: 1 1308
are you saying believing in your nonsense is a 12 step program?
Quote from: 1 1309
More ad homs. Why don't you go fuck yourself.
Quote from: 1 1645
Fecalbook deleted this. I'm putting it back.
It is my intent to present you as you present yourself.
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/MonkeyBrain.png
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on December 06, 2022, 07:02:43 AM
Quote from:
Private Message 1 1748 I got a restriction for fishing out what i received. Let's keep it even and fair. I can ad hom with the worst of them,  but I'm trying to have this discussion in good faith, but there's a limit when it comes to personal attacks.
Quote from:
Private Message 1 2044 Dishing*
Quote
Quoting my wife:
➽ Dear Dale,
you are dealing with a brainless fucking idiot.

Dear Kitty,
Yes. I know.

As you are aware, monkeys can be trapped very easily. All that is needed is a chained container with a hole just big enough for the monkey to reach in and grab the bait. Once the monkey grabs the bait, making a fist, the monkey can not withdraw their hand. The monkey is not smart enough to let go of that which it is so fixated on, so it gets captured.

I have seen many a mind get captured thusly because that mind refuses to give up a belief.

In the instance of this monkey minded flat earth believer, The reason this discussion has been going on since September 30, 2022 is because of my curiosity and attempt to understand the peanut his mind has grabbed and refuses to let go of. As you had focused, so do I... Pressure/density gradients.

On November 6 @ 0734 hrs, Monkey-brain posted:
➽ i don't beleive there's such a thing as "the vaccume of space"

Quite obvious to me, monkey-brain can not conceptualize "infinity".

If I was actually in a mood to continue interacting with his monkeyness, (which I am not because I've wasted entirely too much time interacting with him), I would ask him to discuss the concepts of looking straight up at night. Since any volume of space, that is, any three dimensional area, with nothing in it is by definition, a vacuum. His monkeyness implies his belief that he can see no further straight up than where air ceases to be... Because he doesn't believe in the nothingness beyond that edge of air.

Just as obvious to me, with his constant whining about pressure requires a container, that he believes there must be an atmospheric container at the edge of the air.

12 1207
➽ But because we know air pressure requires a container, it is simple to think whatever the container is and its shape could cause the light rays we see to make the angles we measure. Since you haven't shown how you can have air pressure next to a vaccume without it equalizing or without a physical barrier this just adds credence to the notion of a structure, either physical or energetic, above us.

Oh SNAP!
What's on the other side of that containing structure?

6 0734
➽ We have air pressure here in earth. Do you have an experiment that demonstrates high pressure next to low or no pressure without equalization or a physical barrier?

Monkey brain can't even recognize when he contradicts his own words.

The above words have been in the can since Thursday December 1rst.

These words were composed Tuesday December 6th.

After watching several episodes of "Mighty Ships" on the Smithsonian channel, the thought occurs to me that his monkeyness has no fucking clue about navigation.


By his religiously addled brain, every navigator of aircraft and ships MUST be in on the "globe earth conspiracy". Every one of those navigators MUST be making a public show of using globe earth navigation tools and procedures, while hiding flat earth tools and procedures.



Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on January 01, 2023, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: 29 1549 direct message:
I like how you like that people are talking shit while I'm banned for simply repeating the ad hom that was given to me, especially since you haven't substantiated. I'll be back in two days so you can elaborate on the claims of how you have air/ gas pressure without a container or how gravity is able to hold air/ gas in a density gradient. I expect an experiment to substantiate the claim,  you've had 30 days.
Quote
Quote from: 29 1549 direct message:

➽ I like how you like that people are talking shit while I'm banned for simply repeating the ad hom that was given to me, especially since you haven't substantiated. I'll be back in two days so you can elaborate on the claims of how you have air/ gas pressure without a container or how gravity is able to hold air/ gas in a density gradient. I expect an experiment to substantiate the claim,  you've had 30 days.

With mixed emotions of both contempt and sadness, I decline to interact with your mindless parroting presentations. I have decided to NOT delete your comments on FE in this FE / GE discussion thread. I have also decided to not delete any of your non-FE comments anywhere else.

I have more important things to present. This cold civil war that is going on in the U.S. and the world could become a hot war with people being killed... That is, with people being killed in addition to the people being killed by governments around the world daily.

When you correctly explain the phases of the moon, I'll think about resuming discussion.

cc: tim lance
Quote from: 1 1333
Dale Eastman yeah all your ad homs don't constitute evidence of anything except a failure to make an intelligent argument. So now that I'm out of banishment for simply dishing out what i had received, do any of you have evidence of gas/air pressure absent a container, or if your claim is gravity holds the gas/air pressure to the earth i would like an experiment demonstrating such behavior. I've already shown an experiment demonstrating a gas/air pressure gradient within a container i will repost it if necessary.
Quote from: 1 1336
When you correctly explain the phases of the moon, I'll think about resuming discussion.
Quote from: 1 1343
no. YOU invoked the pressure gradient and i would like evidence that supports the claim. Or you can concede that you have no evidence that refutes the fact that gas/air pressure requires a container, and this a gas/air pressure gradient requires a container. If you can concede you we can get to the logical deduction of why a lens of some sort could be envoked in explaining how the sun apears in an apparent location and why the experiment of the flat table with a light source observed through a lens is plausible and viable.
Quote from: 1 1351
You have been given MY terms for continuing this discussion.

Else:
Quote
Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use
Quote from: 1 1405
so you concede, then. Ok. We shall go over the moon phases. The sun circles the above the earth once every 24 hours and between the two tropics yearly, the moon moves between the tropics monthly, but circles the earth at a slower pace than the sun, whereby, the sun laps the moon once every 28 days. We used to have 13 months(moonths) of 28 days. So when the moon is closest to the sun we have a "new moon". No one sees the new moon, not even with ir cameras (interesting). When the moon is farthest from the sun (on opposite sides of the earth) we get our full moon. The moon is its own light sorce, but it's phases are dependent on its position relative to the sun. Why do i say the moon is its own light sorce? Because of the inverse square law of light. On a full moon night, where the moon casts a shadow on the ground, and we are very modest, say we could call that one lumin, it's like more but if we call it just one lumin, and we have the distance to the moon its 4 lumins(as the inverse square law of light dictates) half that distance again and were at 8 lumin, and you do this all the way till your 100 miles from the moon, in the globe model, the brightness it would have to be is multitudes brighter than we see the sun from here on earth. Now speaking of moon phases, have you heard of the "impossible eclipse" or the seleninlion eclipse?
Quote from: 1 1415
➽ so you concede, then. Ok. We shall go over the moon phases. The sun circles the above the earth once every 24 hours and between the two tropics yearly, the moon moves between the tropics monthly, but circles the earth at a slower pace than the sun, whereby, the sun laps the moon once every 28 days. We used to have 13 months(moonths) of 28 days. So when the moon is closest to the sun we have a "new moon". No one sees the new moon, not even with ir cameras (interesting). When the moon is farthest from the sun (on opposite sides of the earth) we get our full moon. The moon is its own light sorce, but it's phases are dependent on its position relative to the sun. Why do i say the moon is its own light sorce? Because of the inverse square law of light. On a full moon night, where the moon casts a shadow on the ground, and we are very modest, say we could call that one lumin, it's like more but if we call it just one lumin, and we have the distance to the moon its 4 lumins(as the inverse square law of light dictates) half that distance again and were at 8 lumin, and you do this all the way till your 100 miles from the moon, in the globe model, the brightness it would have to be is multitudes brighter than we see the sun from here on earth. Now speaking of moon phases, have you heard of the "impossible eclipse" or the seleninlion eclipse?

◎ All of the above
◎ Some of the above
◉ None of the above
Quote from: 1 1415
https://youtu.be/4q1f0fQizyc
Quote from: 1 1424
https://youtu.be/x0Cr_VUtY08
Quote from: 1 1452
https://youtu.be/9US3oaEZ8dI
Quote from: 1 1459
https://youtu.be/3vL3JCssBl4
Quote from: 1 1514
I have no duty to address your delusions...
So:

Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use

Move along.
You are dismissed.

file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/0001/No%20Delusion%20Duty.png
Quote from: 1 1528
you clearly cannot refute what I've put forward regarding gas/air pressure and claiming gravity creates a gradient with no evidence to support this claim, and by your silence and refusal to answer it is acceptance by acquiescence, another one for the flat-basket. I've moved on to the moon phases and eclipses with several videos as my proofs of claim. A ball casting a shadow on a ball creates an elliptical shadow contrary to what's observed. The shadow of a lunar eclipse will come in from the opposite side of the direction of how the earth is said to move in relation to the moon, in the globe model (i observed this myself with the last lunar eclipse. The seleninlion eclipse can't work on the ball as both moon and sun are both above the horizon. A shadow cannot be smaller than the object casting the shadow, the solar eclipse is refuted, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Can you provide or produce evidence of an object casting a shadow smaller than the object itself?
Quote from: 1 1529
https://youtu.be/dJbU4tSpsAY
Quote from: 1 1727
I have no duty to address your delusions...
So:

Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use

Move along.
You are dismissed.
Quote from: 1 1730
you're right but if you're claiming you can prove your claim you would show evidence, otherwise its an acceptance by acquiescence. So I've moved on to moon phases like you requested.
Quote from: 1 1743
Repeating what I wrote:
When you correctly explain the phases of the moon, I'll think about resuming discussion.

You have NOT correctly explained the phases of the moon.
You have posted crap vids that do NOT explain the phases of the moon...
Your vids are NOT YOU explaining.
You are not even smart enough to understand that this discussion is over.
Keep shitting last words in the conversation, I will block you. I'm tired of the work required to archive your delusional posts.
Title: Re: Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Post by: Dale Eastman on January 02, 2023, 08:25:03 AM
Quote from: 1 20:22
get fucked. You haven't substantiate one claim of the globe. And nothing so far has been placed into the globe only basket. I'm out. Maybe flat earth just isn't for you. Have fun on your imaginary spinny space rock in your endless vacuum. Maybe one day you'll have the eyes to see.
Quote from: 2 0924
Have a nice life.